# Five Alignments?



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

preview said:
			
		

> There are 5 Alignments: Good, Lawful Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, Unaligned. Among the gods I did not see any evil or CE listed.



WTF?  Why LG and CE but no CG or LE?

I have a feeling this is going to be one change that fries me.  I have always hated the BS that LG was more good and CE was more evil than the others.  Personally, I'd be more inclined to call the domineering LG and the unthinking CE less extreme than the others, if I had to make a call.

Can someone who has seen the books at least say that LG isn't Good++ and CE isn't Evil++?  I can wait for details.  I'm just suddenly very concerned that WotC was passing the bong while working on alignments.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 17, 2008)

Meh Neutral Evil is the true evil. Demons and devils are child's play against loths.


----------



## Xethreau (May 17, 2008)

I think that five alignments works a lot better for a PoL setting that nine alignments do.

Anybody ever read Lord of the Flies?  If you have, I rest my case.


----------



## mrtomsmith (May 17, 2008)

Curses! Ninja'd! I'll try to merge my post into this one:

So, according to the sneak peeks, alignment is in 4e, but it's a simple linear spectrum: LG, G, un, E, CE. Simplifying it like this disturbs me. One of the great things about D&D, one of the things that really opened my mind when I read the books as a kid, was the open spectrum of morality. Lawful Evil is a great way to define a truth about the world that opens up a wide variety of interesting roleplaying scenarios.

I'd been fine with the earlier rumors of minimal alignment in 4e, as I respect the difficulties of making alignment work in a RPG environment. Players don't abide by their character's alignment, and they shouldn't really be forced to. Having books or cosmology full of LN and LG beasties doesn't really help in a game where combat and conflict are key. But if you're going to minimize it, don't remove the best parts.

So yes, I'll be house ruling it in my campaign. But I feel bad for all those 10 year olds who aren't going to get their worldview expanded like I did.

My name is Tom, and I'm Chaotic Good.


----------



## Kvantum (May 17, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Meh Neutral Evil is the true evil. Demons and devils are child's play against loths.



Exactly. Demons may corrupt your body, devils your mind, but it takes a 'loth to corrupt the immortal part of a person - their soul.

The changes to alignment are another of the many, many reasons I'm not playing 4e. Some of the mechanical changes make sense, and maybe even a tiny bit of the fluff, but it's way more bass-ackwards changes than ones that make sense, at least from my POV.


----------



## Tervin (May 17, 2008)

This a change that I don't like, from what is known so far.

Ok, I don't really like alignments at all, but this a change from a bad system to something a lot worse, it seems.


----------



## Tervin (May 17, 2008)

RyukenAngel said:
			
		

> I think that five alignments works a lot better for a PoL setting that nine alignments do.
> 
> Anybody ever read Lord of the Flies?  If you have, I rest my case.




I think I interpret either the Golding's book or the alignment system different from you. And I really don't think a PoL setting means less use of something like LE or CG. The secret freedom fighters in the evil empire having only a few safe havens left... ?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 17, 2008)

If that's true I think it's Stupid.

How can players not "get" CG, it's a very straightforward alignment.  The alignment of "rebels with a cause", just like how LE is also very straightforward as the alignment of fascist tyrants.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 17, 2008)

Someone on RPG.net suggested an (alternative?) take of this:

Good - pure, altruistic, saintly good.
LG - social goodness, moderated by the society and the laws.
Unaligned - getting along and minding your own business
CE - petty, selfish evil, without an overarching motivation.
Evil - pure, metaphysically motivated evil.


----------



## Korgoth (May 17, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> WTF?  Why LG and CE but no CG or LE?
> 
> I have a feeling this is going to be one change that fries me.  I have always hated the BS that LG was more good and CE was more evil than the others.  Personally, I'd be more inclined to call the domineering LG and the unthinking CE less extreme than the others, if I had to make a call.
> 
> Can someone who has seen the books at least say that LG isn't Good++ and CE isn't Evil++?  I can wait for details.  I'm just suddenly very concerned that WotC was passing the bong while working on alignments.




See, I think that true Goodness implies Law (though not vice versa).  So I would tend to see "Chaotic Good" as "sorta good".


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (May 17, 2008)

It does seems a bit inelegant.  If you include LG and CE, it seems strange to beg off the prospect of  LE and CG. If they are just G++ and E++, I think I'll just replace the terms with Beatific and Diabolical.


----------



## malraux (May 17, 2008)

Meh, 4 down, 5 to go.  Really I don't think anything would be lost by trashing the whole alignment concept.


----------



## Kvantum (May 17, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> See, I think that true Goodness implies Law (though not vice versa).  So I would tend to see "Chaotic Good" as "sorta good".



CG as Optimistic Good, hoping that people will do the right thing, even without the laws there to force them to; and LG as Pessimistic Good, wanting people to do the right thing, even if they have to force them to through laws?


----------



## doctorhook (May 17, 2008)

My gut reaction (having not seen exactly what form alignment takes in 4E) is that this is a step backwards. It seems arbitrary. OTOH, since it seems so arbitrary, it doesn't strike me as a stretch to change LG to CG and CE to LE, but then, that's just as arbitrary, isn't it?

I'm happy with the changes that remove _detect alignment_ (and the associated problems) from the game, and I'm very happy with the new Unaligned alignment (possibly the greatest thing to happen to alignment, ever). I also imagine that these could have unforeseen consequences for alignment.

Upon reflection, I suspect that the 'missing' alignments were probably removed to discourage alignment 'straightjacketing' by players and novice DMs; perhaps since many characters will simply by Unaligned, it will only be a very rare few who are truly LG or CE, the most extreme alignments presented. In a sudden burst of optimism, I'm imagining that maybe we'll get the other three 'extreme alignments' -- CG, LE, and True Neutral -- presented to us in PH2 as further roleplaying options, since alignment will likely not have mechanical benefit.

Unaligned, Good and Evil, and five extreme alignments would basically cover all the options, not to mention give us more functionality than we have now. (I don't honestly believe LN and CN provide much to the game.)


----------



## Nymrohd (May 17, 2008)

Yeah it would have been better to remove them completely rather than remove some. Though unaligned was very much needed.


----------



## Korgoth (May 17, 2008)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> CG as Optimistic Good, hoping that people will do the right thing, even without the laws there to force them to; and LG as Pessimistic Good, wanting people to do the right thing, even if they have to force them to through laws?




I guess it depends on if you count Prudence as a virtue, and if you think that "hoping people will do the right thing" is prudent.  The argument would go like this: "A society governed by Goodness will ensure justice for each of its members.  Justice is ensured only through laws."


----------



## Andor (May 17, 2008)

.... The original WHFRPG had a 5 element alignment scale that went Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic.

Huh.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

I think it's more like LG is a Subset of Good, one that focuses on a strict personal code of behavior, not compromising the internals, but still absolutely good.  The "Domineering" part of the "Old LG" goes to unaligned.  I don't see that this part of good being "more" good than others but it is distinctive.

Chaotic Evil represents the sort of mad scenery chewing evil.  It doesn't mean "more evil".


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 17, 2008)

Don't assume that G, LG, E, and CE mean exactly the same in 4E than they did in prior editions.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 17, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I think it's more like LG is a Subset of Good, one that focuses on a strict personal code of behavior, not compromising the internals, but still absolutely good.  The "Domineering" part of the "Old LG" goes to unaligned.  I don't see that this part of good being "more" good than others but it is distinctive.
> 
> Chaotic Evil represents the sort of mad scenery chewing evil.  It doesn't mean "more evil".




Without saying whether Gene's right or wrong in terms of specifics, I will say that this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Things don't necessarily mean what they used to, and some things aren't "missing" so much as "no longer differentiated enough to need their own categories" under the new (and broader) definitions.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Don't assume that G, LG, E, and CE mean exactly the same in 4E than they did in prior editions.




FWIW, I broke this puppy in March!


----------



## A'koss (May 17, 2008)

There's definitely more Moorcockian influence on alignment now (Law associated with "Good", Chaos with "Evil"). On the surface it feels rather odd for D&D though, given the game's history. I'm curious to see where they're going with this because I'm not seeing an obvious improvement to the game here...


----------



## frankthedm (May 17, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd be more inclined to call the domineering LG and the unthinking CE less extreme than the others, if I had to make a call.



Well, those two _are_ the simpler to explain. I'd hope wotc did not just ditch the other alignments due to the confusion they cause, but 4E does have that _"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater"_ thing going. But since lots of folks have differing opinions on what CG and CN really mean, I guess ditching them for an edition is worth a shot.

And for the new cosmology, it makes some sense since the elemental Chaos is opposed to the Law of the gods. Working against order automatically sends you sliding to evil.

Though I say 9 alignments are fine.


----------



## hong (May 17, 2008)

This will not end well


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This will not end well




What is hongs alignment?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 17, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> There's definitely more Moorcockian influence on alignment now (Law associated with "Good", Chaos with "Evil"). On the surface it feels rather odd for D&D though, given the game's history.



It's not very surprising, if you recall that BECMI edition had the alignments as Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, with strong implications that Chaotic was usually the same as "evil" and Lawful the same as "good".

I'm getting a stronger and stronger BECMI vibe from 4e, really.


----------



## ki11erDM (May 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This will not end well




LOL.

As always you speek the truth


----------



## Sojorn (May 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This will not end well



That assumes that it will end. Going for the hopeful outlook? :/


----------



## A'koss (May 17, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This will not end well



LOL! When does _any_ "discussion" on alignment end well?


----------



## Tuft (May 17, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Things don't necessarily mean what they used to, and some things aren't "missing" so much as "no longer differentiated enough to need their own categories" under the new (and broader) definitions.




Now, that really makes it sound like "lawful" simply means nothing more than "double-plus-good" instead its old flavor of "working through major organizations, following unbendable rules"....


----------



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Don't assume that G, LG, E, and CE mean exactly the same in 4E than they did in prior editions.



That is exactly what I'm hoping.  I'm just having a hard time coming up with meanings that both represent a rational continuation of the legacy terms and don't somehow include the notion that LG is somehow "more good" than regular good.

The best I can think of is that LG and CE represent the way-old-school L/N/C axis.  Sort of a St. Cuthbert vs. the Wyrm or a situation where the dogma of law assumes order == good opposes unbounded hedonism and self-absorption.  If that -- or something similar -- is what's going on, then I'll be okay.  LG and CE will simply be the alignments of those who are missing the point, which isn't so much of a change in my sensibilities.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 17, 2008)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> CG as Optimistic Good, hoping that people will do the right thing, even without the laws there to force them to; and LG as Pessimistic Good, wanting people to do the right thing, even if they have to force them to through laws?



Sounds more like old-style Neutral Good.  Chaotic good in essence would seem to be more like ignoring a person's personal choices for their own wellbeing.

I think that the new "Good" can apply to both the old Chaotic and Neutral Good; you care about the common good more than the order/precedents through which it is enforced.  "Lawful Good" would care about the state of society and the repercussions of one's actions, seeing the longterm rather than the short.
Meanwhile, the new "Evil" can apply to both the old Lawful and Neutral Evil; you're evil for yourself, rather than because it is how you were made/raised.  If you're "Chaotic Evil" it is because you are deranged, insane, or brought up to respect the essence of doing harm to others for no reason, which is against the logical natural order.

I personally think they just streamlined it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> Now, that really makes it sound like "lawful" simply means nothing more than "double-plus-good" instead its old flavor of "working through major organizations, following unbendable rules"....




But Lawful Good's old flavor was about seeking the good of the community as a whole and following personal codes of honor, the stuff you are talking about would never have been in LG.


----------



## Kvantum (May 17, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on if you count Prudence as a virtue, and if you think that "hoping people will do the right thing" is prudent.  The argument would go like this: "A society governed by Goodness will ensure justice for each of its members.  Justice is ensured only through laws."



Then those in charge of enforcing the laws must be given power, and since power corrupts, Goodness cannot actually govern.

(Not disputing the point, just seeing where the logic leads.)


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 17, 2008)

The fact that people can, and constantly do, have so wildly different ideas of what Chaotic and Lawful mean is, IMO, the best reason to give up on them and streamline the alignments.


----------



## Exen Trik (May 17, 2008)

Am I the only one who simply _likes _this? 

The way I see it, every alignment had a social aspect to them in respect to laws and such, but Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil doubled as the "strict moral code" and "just kill everything" roles. No other alignment had such additional extremes to them. So all they did was take those out make them separate, while removing the social aspects from good and evil.


----------



## Korgoth (May 17, 2008)

Kvantum said:
			
		

> Then those in charge of enforcing the laws must be given power, and since power corrupts, Goodness cannot actually govern.
> 
> (Not disputing the point, just seeing where the logic leads.)




Obviously "power corrupts" is not an axiom of Lawful Good philosophy.

Actually it's a paraphrase of Lord Acton, who held a particular view (characterized as "Liberalism") of history and social relations.  I won't get into an evaluation of that view, but it would be wrong to simply assume that the axioms of Liberalism are fundamental truths of reality.  They might be, or they might not be... it has to be argued for, rather than assumed.


----------



## Mercule (May 17, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> axioms of Liberalism are fundamental truths of reality.  They might be, or they might not be... it has to be argued for, rather than assumed.



Classical Liberalism or modern Liberalism?  European or American Liberalism?  Social or economic?

* Not starting a real political discussion, just validating the OP's point.


----------



## Korgoth (May 17, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Classical Liberalism or modern Liberalism?  European or American Liberalism?  Social or economic?
> 
> * Not starting a real political discussion, just validating the OP's point.




I said I was talking about Lord Acton.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 17, 2008)

This is (so far) the only change in D&D that I definitely don't like...

Well, the second one, since I had a strong knee-jerk rejection of the 1-1-1-1 movement... However, that one has actually started to grow on me after I had a 30 minute discussion about areas of effect in our 3.5 game (rounded fireballs that only affect squares are not as bad as mid-game arguments between players and DM)

But back to alignments... Not too long ago I was complaining in another forum that the 3x3 grid of alignments was too restrictive and I was proposing an Ethics/Morality scale to give more options to players to describe their characters...



			
				Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Someone on RPG.net suggested an (alternative?) take of this:
> 
> Good - pure, altruistic, saintly good.
> LG - social goodness, moderated by the society and the laws.
> ...




If this is the official version, it might make a bit more sense, but ultimately I suspect that the design team wanted to get rid of alignments but someone argued that "chaotic evil" and "lawful good" were sacred cow phrases... Like the new saving throws, which should be called something else entirely, or Hit Points


----------



## Elphilm (May 17, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> And for the new cosmology, it makes some sense since the elemental Chaos is opposed to the Law of the gods. Working against order automatically sends you sliding to evil.



This is actually what I was thinking. If we forget for a moment the D&D specific notion of Chaotic, chaos in mythology has always been in direct opposition to the material universe, which is essentially a product of imposing order upon chaos. Evil is a part of the world, whereas chaos is outside the world and inherently more harmful to it.

I'm not saying 4E is taking this route, though, merely that there are several possibilities for how the new alignments could work.


----------



## Byronic (May 17, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> There's definitely more Moorcockian influence on alignment now (Law associated with "Good", Chaos with "Evil"). On the surface it feels rather odd for D&D though, given the game's history. I'm curious to see where they're going with this because I'm not seeing an obvious improvement to the game here...




Well there has always been a strong Moorcockian influence on alignment, probably because alignment was inspired by stories written by him and Poul Anderson.

It's funny how people are associating "Law" with "Good" and "Chaotic" with "Evil" though. If we look at the Moorcock inspiration Law is definitely *not* Good, nor is Chaos really Evil. If Law would win then human civilisation would be gone. We would have no creation, no change, nothing. Mankind requires both of them in balance. 

Even if we forget that little bit (since we're playing DnD and not Elric!) we still have a problem. Elves were originally "Chaotic" and Dwarves "Lawful" Are Elves really more evil then Dwarves? If the alignment does not fit, you must acquit! 

I'll leave real world situations out (especially since most people here (seem) to be "gamist" and not very "simulationist"). In any case I shall have to wait and see what happens with the alignment. I don't really care a kobolds rump though, as a DM I can house rule it and as a player I can just ignore alignment altogether and simply make sure my characters have.. well... character.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 17, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Don't assume that G, LG, E, and CE mean exactly the same in 4E than they did in prior editions.




Alas, we are foiled from knowing "the true story" by the old NDA!   



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> There's definitely more Moorcockian influence on alignment now (Law associated with "Good", Chaos with "Evil"). On the surface it feels rather odd for D&D though, given the game's history. I'm curious to see where they're going with this because I'm not seeing an obvious improvement to the game here...




If I remember correctly, in some early incarnation of the game, D&D only had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic as alignments, which undoubtedly was a Moorcock influence... Only later were Good and Evil added to the mix...

_edit: Ninjaed!!_


----------



## Spatula (May 17, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> The fact that people can, and constantly do, have so wildly different ideas of what Chaotic and Lawful mean is, IMO, the best reason to give up on them and streamline the alignments.



Yeah, they would have been better off ditching Lawful & Chaotic entirely.  It's not hard to define workable definitions of them, and even looking at the Great Wheel you can kinda see how they should be used.  But the actual words are misleading ("Well, you're Lawful, so you can't break the law, right") and the ideas that people have formed over the years has rendered those particular words problematic.

Personally I would have been happy with just getting rid of LN, NG, CN, and NE.  Or with removing alignment altogether, which I thought was the basic approach they were going for.  The DDXP characters are mostly unaligned as were almost all of the DDM monsters that we have beta-4e stats for.



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> There's definitely more Moorcockian influence on alignment now (Law associated with "Good", Chaos with "Evil"). On the surface it feels rather odd for D&D though, given the game's history.



Uhm?  I always thought that the original alignments (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic in OD&D - AD&D added Good & Evil and the 3x3 matrix) came straight from Moorcock.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 17, 2008)

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.


----------



## Revinor (May 17, 2008)

I had a discussion about this with my friend yesterday and this is a summary of what we have came to:

It is Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic. Good and evil descriptors next to the lawful and chaotic are just extras, not defining parts.

Good versus Evil is about human (demihuman/whatever) souls. Gods are mostly good or evil.

Lawful versus Chaotic is more than just society versus anarchy. It is about preserving the multiverse in the way it is now versus tearing it apart. It is about the war between gods and primordials in the old age. Titans/demons which have the the ties to primordials/elemental chaos are Chaotic (evil). Devils/angels of evil gods are 'just' evil.

Evil gods are NOT close to be chaotic. They still enjoy working in current 'ruleset'. Primordials on the other hand, would be happy to get rid of current multiverse and start again, this time probably without those pesky small gods intervening and messing the Creation with their spawn.

No sane human will be ever chaotic in true meaning of that. No sane god will be ever chaotic. Tharizdun is probably nice example of evil god gone chaotic.

Lawful is about preserving the world. It is beyond 'good' - while it is interpreted by common people as being good, it is just because they perceive laws, civilization, stability of ground below their feet etc as good. There might be a lot of lawful people who act in the way good people do - but as soon as you move to the true meaning of Lawful, you have to make choices. Burning the village of 1000 to get rid of one heretic which could free primordial power is acceptable cost. You will feel regret, but what is the point of those 1000 people living another day, if tomorrow world will cease to exist? Think about it as medieval Inquisition, but with REAL enemy, one which will unmake the world instead of just corrupting few souls. Good versus evil is secondary to preserving the existence/balance of the world.

In certain way, evil gods are a lot closer to 'Lawful Evil' then they are to 'Chaotic Evil' (sane ones at least). Reason why they are put next to it on the scale is because the scale itself is defined by good/neutral people - for commoners, difference between eating their souls and destroying the world is probably very slim. At the same time, Lawful seems to be close to Good, because it is how they are told to believe - plus, from almost every point of view, Lawful behavior will bring them more good in long run, even if it can be painful at any given moment.

I understand that this interpretation goes bit beyond what will be in official D&D - especially possible cruelty of Lawful agents. Still, I think, that evil=Gods corrupting souls, chaotic=Primordials destroying the multiverse will be something quite official.


----------



## Elphilm (May 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uhm?  I always thought that the original alignments (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic in OD&D - AD&D added Good & Evil and the 3x3 matrix) came straight from Moorcock.



In the Elric stories Chaos was definitely capital E evil and Law represented the forces of good. However, this was simply because Elric's world was being overrun by the forces of Chaos. When the cosmic balance is tipped towards either Law or Chaos it usually spells doom for the mortal world. What Byronic wrote in post #42 is correct - only Balance is inherently good in the works of Moorcock.

So, what A'koss meant was that there is definitely an Elric influence on alignment now.


----------



## MaelStorm (May 17, 2008)

IMO, it was a much needed cleanup, sorry for the fans who preferred the old alignment system from older edition. But alignment in 4E is only fluff, so there shouldn't be any problem for DMs to revert back to it.

Philosophically, it's logical. Chaos is bound to create disorder, and is in direct conflict with law, vice versa.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 17, 2008)

I am not really sure what to think about all of this, honestly...

What little we know about the new system actually reminds me somewhat of the alignment system of the videogame series called Ogre Battle, though I am sure the similarity is mostly superficial. In that game, alignment is judged on a scale going from the "low alignment" 0, called the Chaotic end of the scale, to "high alignment" 100, the Law end of the scale. Magical attacks based on Lawful alignment were called Virtue effects, and magical attacks based on Chaotic alignment were Bane effects. Healers, Paladins, Knights, Angels and Valkyries were Lawful. Vampires, Dark Knights, Liches, Berserkers, and all forms of Wizards, Witches, and Sorceresses were Chaotic. Beyond that, though, there was not a terrible huge emphasis on true good or evil in the system. At the very least, the heroes (who are pretty much the good guys) could use a mix of lawful and chaotic units, and you are just as likely to fight evil Lawful units as you were evil Chaotic units. I rather liked that system.

Actually, I find that I mostly prefer pure Law vs. Chaos alignments over good vs. evil alignments. Such a split was done very well in the videogame Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, for example. Of course, that split was done in pretty complicated manner, and mostly revolved around the idea that balance is far better than either extreme, since extremes tended to involve a lot of death and destruction...

Maybe they should have just gotten rid of the D&D alignment system altogether.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uhm?  I always thought that the original alignments (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic in OD&D - AD&D added Good & Evil and the 3x3 matrix) came straight from Moorcock.




  I've heard that they come more from Poul Anderson's work, actually, but not having read it, I can't say. (Having read Moorcock's Elric books and some of his comments, I'm inclined to say that the _less_ Moorcock in D&D, the better, but I'm an outlier who would like more heroic epic fantasy and less gritty, amoral swords & sorcery in the game.    )

  As for the main topic, I'm waiting on a definition of Lawful Good, and to a lesser extent, Chaotic Evil. I get the impression that Chaotic Evil is now more overtly the 'destruction' alignment, as opposed to the 'greed/domination' of ordinary Evil, but we'll have to wait until June 2nd. So far, my only disappointment is that they didn't include a more restricted Lawful Evil for the 'honorable villain' type (cf. the _Castle Falkenstein_ RPG).


----------



## A'koss (May 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uhm?  I always thought that the original alignments (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic in OD&D - AD&D added Good & Evil and the 3x3 matrix) came straight from Moorcock.



I'm talking about about the "advanced" game naturally. It feels odd in that now there is only Good flavored Law and Evil flavored Chaos now in D&D. I should have said the Moorcockian influence is stronger again D&D which had really put it's own stamp down with it's wider range of Chaotics and Lawfuls in AD&D on up. 

As I said, I'd like to know more about where they're going with this because I don't see the improvement over how it's been working before.


----------



## Gloombunny (May 17, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> Someone on RPG.net suggested an (alternative?) take of this:
> 
> Good - pure, altruistic, saintly good.
> LG - social goodness, moderated by the society and the laws.
> ...



That was me.   Although my description of evil was more along the lines of calculated, ruthless ambition and/or extreme sadism, compared to the petty greed and violence of chaotic evil.

So Asmodeus is _evil_ evil, but a hill giant who just likes smashin' things is merely chaotic evil.


----------



## delericho (May 17, 2008)

Personally, I'm more interested in the second part of the report:



> Among the gods I did not see any evil or CE listed.




So, does this mean that Asmodeus isn't a god then? Or is their god of tyranny not Evil?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 17, 2008)

Chaos = Individuality, Change, Flexibility
Law = Society, Stasis, Control


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 17, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Chaos = Individuality, Change, Flexibility
> Law = Society, Stasis, Control




Highly biased.


----------



## Remathilis (May 17, 2008)

BECMI had three alignments (Chaos, Neutral, Law) and OD&D had five (chaos+good, law+good, chaos+evil, law+evil, and neutral). So I don't mind having less alignments. However, I miss my CG.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 17, 2008)

I don't like this one bit. *Maybe* there's an explanation... maybe. But I'm not seeing it.

I hate the law/chaos axis anyway, for exactly the reasons illustrated by Kobold Avenger's and Charwoman Gene's little exchange abovethread. For a Moorcockian cosmology? Sure. But a Moorcockian notion of the Law-Chaos "balance" is as specific a narrative element as the "gods" being non-Euclidean squamous Entities from Beyond, or all wizards being celestial servants from the Undying Lands. It's more an exogenous cosmological/world-building statement of things as they are than a set of tools for determining or describing role-playing behavior.


----------



## Sojorn (May 17, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> It's more an exogenous cosmological/world-building statement of things as they are than a set of tools for determining or describing role-playing behavior.



Which makes me wonder if LG and CE arn't somehow PoL related.


----------



## lutecius (May 17, 2008)

An odd choice. It does look very similar to WFRP alignment, it's just less "elegant".



			
				Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> The fact that people can, and constantly do, have so wildly different ideas of what Chaotic and Lawful mean is, IMO, the best reason to give up on them and streamline the alignments.



This. Law and chaos may work as metaphysical forces but they have always done a crappy job of simulating actual human behaviour or ethics.

Just good-neutral-evil would have been tolerable, because they’re a more common fantasy archetype than Law vs Chaos, but even they are really just that, fantasy.
Good and evil mean very different things depending on the period and society, but at least there are some examples of good or evil persons most would agree on.



> Someone on RPG.net suggested an (alternative?) take of this:
> 
> Good - pure, altruistic, saintly good.
> LG - social goodness, moderated by the society and the laws.
> ...



Considering sevitors of the primordials like the titans are CE, the metaphysical extremes are more likely to be CE and LG.


----------



## Gloombunny (May 17, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Considering sevitors of the primordials like the titans are CE, the metaphysical extremes are more likely to be CE and LG.



I kind of expect CE and LG to be the extremes too, but what do titans have to do with it?  Are primordials the exemplar of eviltude?


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 17, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I kind of expect CE and LG to be the extremes too, but what do titans have to do with it?  Are primordials the exemplar of eviltude?




  Given the anti-creation motif we've seen assigned to demons and primordials servants, I suspect CE will be the 'destroy the world' alignment, while Evil will be 'rule/plunder the world'. Lawful Good, if I had to guess, will be the alignment for archetypal paladins, knights, and others who do the right thing and follow a rigorous code of honor, while Good is for those who are well-meaning but not quite so scrupulous.


----------



## lutecius (May 17, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I kind of expect CE and LG to be the extremes too, but what do titans have to do with it?  Are primordials the exemplar of eviltude?



I believe they're the examplars of chaosness.


----------



## MaelStorm (May 17, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Given the anti-creation motif we've seen assigned to demons and primordials servants, I suspect CE will be the 'destroy the world' alignment, while Evil will be 'rule/plunder the world'. Lawful Good, if I had to guess, will be the alignment for archetypal paladins, knights, and others who do the right thing and follow a rigorous code of honor, while Good is for those who are well-meaning but not quite so scrupulous.



THIS is how I see it too.


----------



## frankthedm (May 17, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Gloombunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pretty much both. Long ago, possibly when or even before the primodeals and the gods were at war, Tharizdun found a / the "seed of evil" and hurled it into the Elemental maelstrom. Wotc did not say why he did it, so it could have been a 'nuclear option' or Tharizdun might have done it just to be a dick, but regardless, that caused the Abyss to form in the elemental maelstrom and birthed the demons. IIRC some primordials even became demon lords from that. 

Not only did the Primodeals lose the war, but they also got corrupted and had their home plane turned into the cosmic toilet. They now want a do-over. Of course than means they have to unmake the current version of creation.


----------



## lutecius (May 17, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Given the anti-creation motif we've seen assigned to demons and primordials servants, I suspect CE will be the 'destroy the world' alignment, while Evil will be 'rule/plunder the world'.



Yes. This is why I don’t like the name CE. This theme looks like a caricature of actual mythology, but "New Order" vs "Ancient Order" would be more appropriate than LG vs CE (not that i suggest "New Order" as a name for an aligmnent)  

The Titans, Jotnar, Asuras or Tiamat, as enemies of the order established by the younger gods are in effect "forces of chaos" but they are not more evil or chaotic in their behaviour than Thor, Odhin or the Greek pantheon.


----------



## Revinor (May 17, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> The Titans, Jotnar, Asuras or Tiamat, as enemies of the order established by the younger gods are in effect "forces of chaos" but they are not more evil or chaotic in their behaviour than Thor, Odhin or the Greek pantheon.




As far as I understand primordials, they would be happy to 'restart' the world, just without sentience this time. Anybody who wants to get rid of all sentience in the world (not only you or me, or even all humans, but idea of intelligent being at all), counts as 'more than evil' in my book.

So, for me, primordials and their servants, probably also Far Realm = CE. Anybody else, just plain E (including evil gods, demon lords, chromatic dragons, charismatic dragons, charm dragons and strange dragons). Chaos = destroy the world. Destroy the world counts as evil in the view of most people - but there is a lot of other, 'lesser' evils which doesn't involve wholesome genocide of all sentient beings.


----------



## Burr (May 17, 2008)

Here is why Chaotic Good is a bad distinction, in retrospect.  Suppose a Good person sees one law as mandating truly "good" behavior and another law as rewarding "evil" behavior (for those in charge, at least).  Yeah, a non-lawful person would have no problem rejecting whatever laws they see fit to reject.  But a truly Good person could never see fit to reject a law they _believe to be good_, even if they believe legal hierarchies are generally bad for society.  Thus, all good people who are not Lawful Good are simply Good.  You could, of course, reject Neutral Good instead and keep Chaotic Good.  But LG-CG implies polarity that doesn't necessarily exist to any great degree.  (One Good person might reject a single evil law out of a multitude of good laws, but this shouldn't seem to make them Chaotic).  It is better to think of Lawful Good as a species of Good overall.

Chaotic Evil makes sense, on the other hand.  The evil side of the equation includes monsters and creatures that may well reject any and all laws, even evil ones.  Good is good, but evil is anything it wants to be at any given time.

Now let's look at Lawful Evil.  Suppose a Lawful Evil creature discovered a utopian kingdom with laws that _perfectly_ mandated good behavior.  Would that creature cease to behave evilly in order to remain lawful?  It seems unlikely.  Hence, it is unlikely that there are any truly lawful evil creatures.  Rather, there are only evil creatures who can _tolerate_ lawfulness.  That makes them simply Evil, not Lawful Evil.

The utopia scenario could also be applied to Lawful Good characters.  Put a LG Paladin in a distopia of perfectly _evil_ laws.  This forces the Paladin into a hard choice: be lawful or be good?  However, that also seems like a conflict it makes sense to throw at players.  It seems much harder to conclude what the Paladin's choice will be than to conclude that a lawful evil NPC would choose evil over lawfulness.  Perhaps if D&D weren't focused on good protagonists and evil antagonists we'd have to treat them the same, but in general it seems more useful to keep Lawful Good and toss Lawful Evil aside.


----------



## med stud (May 17, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Yes. This is why I don’t like the name CE. This theme looks like a caricature of actual mythology, but "New Order" vs "Ancient Order" would be more appropriate than LG vs CE (not that i suggest "New Order" as a name for an aligmnent)
> 
> The Titans, Jotnar, Asuras or Tiamat, as enemies of the order established by the younger gods are in effect "forces of chaos" but they are not more evil or chaotic in their behaviour than Thor, Odhin or the Greek pantheon.



Except that they want to destroy the world. However you turn this issue, you have to say that destroying the world, from the perspective of those living in it, is evil or insane. Insane is no alignment, so evil it is. Chaos is the force of unmaking, therefore destruction by unmaking = chaotic evil. Law is stability and when you have reached the perfect world, you don't want it to change. Those striving for a good world that won't change = lawful good. 

Chaotic good = doing good by unmaking and changing. Unless you are after perpetual change, even when things are good, this is an alignment that can only react to others. That's my main problem with that alignment.

Lawful evil = See Burr's post above. Spot on.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 17, 2008)

The only thing I find weird about this Alignment system is the way 'Unaligned' will work. I can't help but feel that 95% of the world's population is unaligned, and that Good, Evil, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are very specific roles a person can fit into. It's the shade of gray on the alignment chart, but it feels more like a gigantic gray splotch that bisects the entire center of the page.

Anyway, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil will always be extremes in my mind... in 3.5, they really did seem very different from the rest of the alignments that shared either of their titles. Chaotic Evil was near mindless in its search for destruction, while Lawful Good came across as oppressive as any evil alignment.


----------



## theNater (May 17, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> ...the way 'Unaligned' will work. I can't help but feel that 95% of the world's population is unaligned, and that Good, Evil, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are very specific roles a person can fit into.



That's exactly right.  Most people don't wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to make the world a better place today".  Most people also don't wake up and say "I'm going to aquire power for myself today, no matter who it hurts".  Those would be your good and evil people, respectively, while most people would just go about their daily lives, helping others if it doesn't hurt them too much, or gaining power for themselves if it doesn't hurt others too much.  That's exactly what 'Unaligned' represents.


----------



## frankthedm (May 17, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Chaotic good = doing good by unmaking and changing. Unless you are after perpetual change, even when things are good, this is an alignment that can only react to others. That's my main problem with that alignment.



The alignment 'reacts' by avoiding large groups and being surly when told what to do. You won't notice CG unless is plunging a weapon into a sleeping tyrant, pressing the downtrodden masses to revolt or finding some other way to make the world a better place in a way detestable to the forces of law.


----------



## jackston2 (May 18, 2008)

Lawful Good
Good = Chaotic Good (Good without worrying about law)
Unaligned
Chaotic Evil
Evil = Imposing your will on others (law)


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 18, 2008)

theNater said:
			
		

> That's exactly right.  Most people don't wake up in the morning and say "I'm going to make the world a better place today".  Most people also don't wake up and say "I'm going to aquire power for myself today, no matter who it hurts".  Those would be your good and evil people, respectively, while most people would just go about their daily lives, helping others if it doesn't hurt them too much, or gaining power for themselves if it doesn't hurt others too much.  That's exactly what 'Unaligned' represents.




I do want to clarify why I thought it odd, though. It's not because I think it's a bad thing, it's because I think that it makes the other alignments entirely unnecessary. It's the first step in a direction that will lead to the removal of the alignment system, which I like.


----------



## Family (May 18, 2008)

Motivation is a factor.

Grizzly: Grumpy Hungry = Attack!
Grizzly: Neutral Hungry = Attack!
Grizzly: Grumpy Tired = Sleep!

What motivation drives your character? Fame, power, loot, knowledge, freedom, accolades, ideals, wenches?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (May 18, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I don't like this one bit. *Maybe* there's an explanation... maybe. But I'm not seeing it.
> 
> I hate the law/chaos axis anyway, for exactly the reasons illustrated by Kobold Avenger's and Charwoman Gene's little exchange abovethread. For a Moorcockian cosmology? Sure. But a Moorcockian notion of the Law-Chaos "balance" is as specific a narrative element as the "gods" being non-Euclidean squamous Entities from Beyond, or all wizards being celestial servants from the Undying Lands. It's more an exogenous cosmological/world-building statement of things as they are than a set of tools for determining or describing role-playing behavior.



The one campaign setting that clearly had a law vs. chaos distinction was Planescape, where the was the Fascistic and Fundamentalist Harmonium on one side and the Anarchist-often Terroristic Revolutionary League on the other.  They represented Law and Chaos as political and nothing metaphysical.   Both of them had their share of Good and Evil members.  Fascism can sometimes be used for good as much as evil, just as Anarchy can be used for good or evil.  Now that's not to completely say that political spectrums are completely related to law and chaos, but they're a very clear example of what law and chaos can be beyond metaphysical forces.


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2008)

Revinor said:
			
		

> As far as I understand primordials, they would be happy to 'restart' the world, just without sentience this time. Anybody who wants to get rid of all sentience in the world (not only you or me, or even all humans, but idea of intelligent being at all), counts as 'more than evil' in my book.
> 
> So, for me, primordials and their servants, probably also Far Realm = CE. Anybody else, just plain E (including evil gods, demon lords, chromatic dragons, charismatic dragons, charm dragons and strange dragons). Chaos = destroy the world. Destroy the world counts as evil in the view of most people - but there is a lot of other, 'lesser' evils which doesn't involve wholesome genocide of all sentient beings.





			
				med stud said:
			
		

> Except that they want to destroy the world. However you turn this issue, you have to say that destroying the world, from the perspective of those living in it, is evil or insane. Insane is no alignment, so evil it is. Chaos is the force of unmaking, therefore destruction by unmaking = chaotic evil.



If all those creatures (titans, giants, demons...) actually want to destroy the world they helped create or destroy all sentient life, including their own, rather than just feed upon it or reshape it, they really are insane or "chaotic stupid".
It could make sense for a category of mindless creatures or two but it would be a waste if so many monster's ultimate motivation was self-annihilation.

This is why I mentionned the primordials equivalent in real world mythology. They want to re-establish the original order, with them on top if possible, even if that means destroying other races. This is not chaotic, not "beyond evil", not as original but it makes more sense and has more potential in my opinion than "must...destroy...universe"


----------



## Aloïsius (May 18, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Except that they want to destroy the world. However you turn this issue, you have to say that destroying the world, from the perspective of those living in it, is evil or insane. Insane is no alignment, so evil it is. Chaos is the force of unmaking, therefore destruction by unmaking = chaotic evil. Law is stability and when you have reached the perfect world, you don't want it to change. Those striving for a good world that won't change = lawful good.



Except that in nearly every real cosmology, chaos is not only the force of unmaking, it's the primal force that creates the world, or from which the world is created. 
Law is the stabilizing, for sure. But chaos has many faces. Prometheus is a chaotic figure, as is Lucifer, as they break the law by giving something to humans, but while lucifer is clearly evil, this is not the case with Prometheus. 
Same thing with Pan/Dyonisos : they symbolize chaos, rebirth, youth. Not a surprise that Dyonisos is killed by Hera (and resurrected later)...


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 18, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> This is why I mentionned the primordials equivalent in real world mythology. They want to re-establish the original order, with them on top if possible, even if that means destroying other races. This is not chaotic, not "beyond evil", not as original but it makes more sense and has more potential in my opinion than "must...destroy...universe"




  Actually, the hints from _Worlds and Monsters_ blends the two by suggesting that the 'order' the primordials wish to establish is a fundamentally chaotic one:



			
				Worlds and Monsters said:
			
		

> The titans worked alongside the primordials to shape the details of the newborn world, though it remains a place of elemental fury and spectacular destruction. Had the primordials been left to their own desires, the world would have remained that way--ever-changing, destroying and rebuilding itself in an endless cycle.
> . . .
> Some of the great primordials who shaped the world from the building blocks of creation yet remain, though chained and raging. Entombed in divinely crafted prisons and hidden within the cosmos, the ancient beings look forward to the hour of their release. When that moment finally comes, they will unleash elemental retaliation upon all of creation.




  Demons, granted, see things a bit differently.


			
				Worlds and Monsters said:
			
		

> The Abyss represents entropy and annihilation, and consequently the demons that inhabit the Abyss are extensions of this cosmological niche. Demons are what the Abyss uses to destroy things beyond its reach. They are, in their many forms, living engines of destruction, beings fundamentally opposed to the gods, their immortal servants, and all their mortal worshippers. The greatest of the demons, the demon lords, believe that annihilation of the unvierse begins with the destruction of the gods and their greatest creations--the world. Since destroying gods is beyond the capability of your average demon horde, the first and foremost agenda of demonkind is to ravage and destroy the world.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

If this alignment change is true, I'm going to have to change my signiture, as there's no way I'm on the fence anymore.  This is the _dumbest_ change they could've made for alignment.  I'd perfer they just hack out the law vs chaos entirely rather then make them ++good or ++evil.


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Actually, the hints from _Worlds and Monsters_ blends the two by suggesting that the 'order' the primordials wish to establish is a fundamentally chaotic one:
> Demons, granted, see things a bit differently.



It's intriguing that "mundane" monsters like the hill giant have the same alignment as demons.

This is off-topic but your excerpt makes me wonder what demon lords like Grazzt or Malcanthet will look like in 4e. Apparently they didn't switch sides like the succubus.


----------



## Spatula (May 18, 2008)

Burr said:
			
		

> The utopia scenario could also be applied to Lawful Good characters.  Put a LG Paladin in a distopia of perfectly _evil_ laws.  This forces the Paladin into a hard choice: be lawful or be good?



Lawful doesn't mean "must follow laws."  And Chaotic doesn't mean "can't follow laws."  They represent the philosophical conflict between Order and Anarchy, Structure vs Freedom, and so on.  That people still don't get this after it's been spelled out in the PHB for all of AD&D's history just shows how inappropriately chosen and weighted with baggage the two terms (especially "Lawful") are.


----------



## thalmin (May 18, 2008)

I didn't read through the section on allignments, only enough to get the five names, so I don't know the linear extremes. I can't say that CE is more evil or worse than Evil. I just remembered that there were 5 and jotted down the names as I passed the book to someone else.


----------



## Family (May 18, 2008)




----------



## BendBars/LiftGates (May 18, 2008)

I was actually quite happy with the proposed alignment change that they had, back when it was going to be "Unaligned, unless you're Good or Evil." I think it ought to be:

Unaligned: You're a regular guy. You make up your own mind and do what is in keeping with your own code of ethics. Nearly everyone in the world is this, including most adventurers and a healthy portion of the monsters they fight.
Good: You serve the metaphysical forces of goodness. Maybe you're an immortal celestial, maybe you're a paladin, maybe you're a cleric empowered by Pelor.
Evil: You are more than just an evil individual. You work for evil. You actively promote Team Evil. You play for the Greyhawk City Evils. You're a demon, or a devil, or a crypt-haunting lich, or sold your soul to Asmodeus, or have been indelibly tainted by the forces of evil.

In this system, alignment only determines whether or not you have been claimed by a side in the good-versus-evil struggle. Most evil people are not Evil. They're just selfish and greedy and don't take an interest in others. And that's all that it means, just like in real life. Most good people are not Good. You may be the nicest guy anyone could ever want, but you don't need to have an alignment unless Pelor has stamped your soul with his own, personal seal.


----------



## drothgery (May 18, 2008)

FWIW, I think the new 5-alignment setup is probably a better reflection of actual play than the 9-alignment setup. In my experience, NG and CG heroes have seemed equally willing to bend and/or break the rules for the greater good, while NE and LE villians have seemed equally willing to lay long plans and corrupt the system rather than start a bloodbath right away. And characters who were neutral with respect to good and evil always seemed capable of justifying any but the most extreme actions.


----------



## pawsplay (May 18, 2008)

If it went Good -> Lawful Good -> Unaligned -> Chaotic Evil -> Evil it would actually parallel the old Warhammer fantasy rpg system.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (May 18, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> But alignment in 4E is only fluff




Maybe not completely, wasn't there something about unaligned paladins being unallowed?


----------



## MaelStorm (May 18, 2008)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:
			
		

> Maybe not completely, wasn't there something about unaligned paladins being unallowed?



Maybe it has changed since, but in a The Tome podcast, Andy Collins mentioned alignment in 4E was only fluff (that there were no mechanical effects, like Detect Evil, etc.).


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2008)

Burr said:
			
		

> Now let's look at Lawful Evil.  Suppose a Lawful Evil creature discovered a utopian kingdom with laws that _perfectly_ mandated good behavior.  Would that creature cease to behave evilly in order to remain lawful?  It seems unlikely.  Hence, it is unlikely that there are any truly lawful evil creatures.  Rather, there are only evil creatures who can _tolerate_ lawfulness.  That makes them simply Evil, not Lawful Evil.
> 
> The utopia scenario could also be applied to Lawful Good characters.  Put a LG Paladin in a distopia of perfectly _evil_ laws.  This forces the Paladin into a hard choice: be lawful or be good?  However, that also seems like a conflict it makes sense to throw at players.  It seems much harder to conclude what the Paladin's choice will be than to conclude that a lawful evil NPC would choose evil over lawfulness.  Perhaps if D&D weren't focused on good protagonists and evil antagonists we'd have to treat them the same, but in general it seems more useful to keep Lawful Good and toss Lawful Evil aside.



Not trying to defend dnd aligment here, but I don't find the LG character in a LE dystopia more unlikely than the reverse. He might try to change the system from within, intrigue to place a good ruler on the throne or simply treat his slaves well.
But I suspect LG will mean something completely different in 4e.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> If it went Good -> Lawful Good -> Unaligned -> Chaotic Evil -> Evil it would actually parallel the old Warhammer fantasy rpg system.



I think you've got it wrong. It was more like: Law (LG) > Good  > Neutral > Evil > Chaos (CE)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 18, 2008)

Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?


----------



## Tervin (May 18, 2008)

Burr said:
			
		

> Here is why Chaotic Good is a bad distinction, in retrospect.  Suppose a Good person sees one law as mandating truly "good" behavior and another law as rewarding "evil" behavior (for those in charge, at least).  Yeah, a non-lawful person would have no problem rejecting whatever laws they see fit to reject.  But a truly Good person could never see fit to reject a law they _believe to be good_, even if they believe legal hierarchies are generally bad for society.  Thus, all good people who are not Lawful Good are simply Good.  You could, of course, reject Neutral Good instead and keep Chaotic Good.  But LG-CG implies polarity that doesn't necessarily exist to any great degree.  (One Good person might reject a single evil law out of a multitude of good laws, but this shouldn't seem to make them Chaotic).  It is better to think of Lawful Good as a species of Good overall.
> 
> Chaotic Evil makes sense, on the other hand.  The evil side of the equation includes monsters and creatures that may well reject any and all laws, even evil ones.  Good is good, but evil is anything it wants to be at any given time.
> 
> Now let's look at Lawful Evil.  Suppose a Lawful Evil creature discovered a utopian kingdom with laws that _perfectly_ mandated good behavior.  Would that creature cease to behave evilly in order to remain lawful?  It seems unlikely.  Hence, it is unlikely that there are any truly lawful evil creatures.  Rather, there are only evil creatures who can _tolerate_ lawfulness.  That makes them simply Evil, not Lawful Evil.




I don't think your reasoning holds up. You are assuming that laws can be "good" and "evil", which to me is a lawful assumption. From a chaotic point of view every law is sometimes "good", sometimes "evil", no matter what the lawmaker intended. A CG person would not necessarily reject laws, just always feel that every situation needs to be looked at individually, and that the laws don't take everything into account.

A simple example is that a good person would in general think that a law against stealing is a good law, but might feel that there are situations when stealing is acceptable. Simplified. a NG person would sometimes feel ready to look the other way at small theft, while a CG person could readily do the stealing themselves, if there was a good reason.


----------



## Tervin (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?




True. I guess many of us assume too much. And I am probably one of them. What seems clear to me though, is that a system with five alignments is less refined than a system with nine. And, that there is no alignment conflict between law and chaos that doesn't take good end evil into the equation. 

On the other hand the system is just as at least as easy to ignore as before, which right now seems like the best solution to me.


----------



## Jack Colby (May 18, 2008)

Stop.  Take a deep breath.  Wait for the books and then read the alignment section in context with the rest of the game.

THEN freak out over the change, if you so choose.


----------



## Revinor (May 18, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> This is why I mentionned the primordials equivalent in real world mythology. They want to re-establish the original order, with them on top if possible, even if that means destroying other races. This is not chaotic, not "beyond evil", not as original but it makes more sense and has more potential in my opinion than "must...destroy...universe"






			
				Worlds and Monsters said:
			
		

> The primordials set out to destroy the world rather than let it become the gods' plaything, while the gods fought to save it and the mortals they had made to inhabit it.
> [...]
> When that moment [primordials get released] finally comes, they will unleash elemental retaliation upon all of creation.




To me it seems more in the camp of "destroy universe" rather than "enslave humanity".

As far as your 'old order' versus 'new thing' comes into play, I plan to do it on another layer IMC. Gods are presented in PHB will be 'old order', but for last few hundred years they are getting pushed back by new, monotheistic, human-centric religion (thing about Empire of Rome + Christian Crusades in one). But this is IMC, we should probably discuss world as presented by WotC, not what 'makes more sense'  And IMHO, WotC is presenting CE quite clearly as 'insane-destroy they world' attitude, just on different levels (nobody expects Hill Giant to really understand it, he just behaves toward destruction on his small, limited level).


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (May 18, 2008)

I liked the suggestion for alignment would be only 3 alignments:

Unaligned for most people 80%+

Good and Evil would be for those who activley participated being a force of Good/Evil in the world/universe.

For some reason I thought this was how it would be, but guess I was wrong. Inclusion of LG & CE bugs me, but guess I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?




  Legacy material from BECMI, where Law generally equaled Good and Chaos generally equaled Evil, and 1E/2E, which tended to treat Lawful Good as the pinnacle of Good?

  My own expectation is:

  Lawful Good: Traditional paladins and knights, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo and Sam, Superman, Captain America, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Hermione Granger
  Good: Robin Hood, 'cowboys', Pippin and Merry, Batman, Spiderman, Anakin and Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter
  Evil: Traditional villains, Sauron, Saruman, Lex Luthor, Darkseid, Doctor Doom, Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, Tom Riddle
  Chaotic Evil: Sociopaths and anarchists, Morgoth, Azathoth, the Joker, Bellatrix Lestrange.


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway?



Because other solutions would be clunky and some people are optimistic.

I know you know what we don't know yet, but I don't expect some "oh, now it all makes sense!" moment. 
So far, most of the intriguing things that were hinted at didn't make more sense to me after the "big reveal".
The simple fact that, late in the design process, some wotc staffers weren't sure which alignments made the cut doesn't bode well.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?




More precisely, because some gamers equate anything that isn't perfectly linear with being clunky.


----------



## kennew142 (May 18, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> Meh, 4 down, 5 to go.  Really I don't think anything would be lost by trashing the whole alignment concept.




QFT.

Five is more than enough, with the emphasis on *more*. I'm just glad that with alignment based mechanical effects out the window, I can throw out alignment completely without rewriting half the system.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 18, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Because other solutions would be clunky and some people are optimistic.




*blink*

Anything non-linear is clunky? The alignment system only works if it runs on a straight, single-line continuum?

Uh, sorry, but that's just nonsense.



> The simple fact that, late in the design process, some wotc staffers weren't sure which alignments made the cut doesn't bode well.




I'd love to see a source on this. Because I've seen playtest drafts dating back over half a year, now, and I can tell you that in terms of alignment, some _terms_ may have changed, but the _content_ and _meanings_ have stayed pretty consistent.


----------



## Dyir (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?




IMO some of this notion came from pre-4E philosophies of alignment; specifically, that "Neutral Good" and "Neutral Evil" where the "true" alignments of Good and Evil.  I, myself, found this notion to be a little overmuch, but I definitely recall that attitude being present in Planescape and still appearing on threads involving alignment from time to time.  I imagine that if you liked that notion, then you would automatically see an alignment named "Good" and being superior to one being named "Lawful Good," since it would register as the same as the previous incarnation of "Neutral Good."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 18, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> Because other solutions would be clunky and some people are optimistic.




I dunno, I'm the opposite.  I'm thinking this because other systems would be open and more creative, and I'm pessimistic.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?



Probably because "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are (still) being used as qualifiers to "Good" and "Evil" respectively. That makes "Lawful Good" a kind of Good, which connects it to "Good". Same for "Chaotic Evil". And with four of the alignments connected up, it's hard not to arrange them linearly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Anything non-linear is clunky? The alignment system only works if it runs on a straight, single-line continuum?
> 
> ...



I don't have the quote, but anyone searching, I think it was Mearls that posted something to the effect. But I suppose that might be because alignment is not his part of the "mechanics", and he might only not have remembered the exact chosen names for the alignments, or something like that. But he wouldn't be the first designer in the world to remember the up-to-date details of his rules. Monte professed similar problems - after having gone through many iterations of the rules, it's hard to keep them all straight.


----------



## Tervin (May 18, 2008)

Thinking about it, I would not have minded a system with five alignments:

Lawful, Good, Unaligned, Evil and Chaotic. 

That would have given me everything I want, and it would have been very easy to show how it was not linear.


----------



## Spatula (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd love to see a source on this. Because I've seen playtest drafts dating back over half a year, now, and I can tell you that in terms of alignment, some _terms_ may have changed, but the _content_ and _meanings_ have stayed pretty consistent.



The only incident that I can think of is, someone at a convention asked Mike Mearls if alignment X was in 4e, and he didn't know the answer.  Mearls said it was a "world" type question and he was the "rules" guy.

There definitely is a difference between the info that was released around the time of DDXP (the pregens, the updated DDM cards) where nearly everything was "unaligned" and there was no mention of Lawful or Chaotic (which I believe is what prompted the above question) and now, where it seems that everything is strongly aligned (CE orcs, giants, titans; LG KotS pregens).


----------



## lutecius (May 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Anything non-linear is clunky? The alignment system only works if it runs on a straight, single-line continuum?
> 
> Uh, sorry, but that's just nonsense.



Not *anything* non linear. This particular list of alignments not being a linear continuum.

If  LG and CE are not necessarily "more good" and "more evil", but still extremes *beyond* Good and Evil, à la WFRP and like Chris Sims' recent "evil or worse" comment seems to suggest *> LINEAR*

I never liked the Law and Chaos descriptors, but if you do keep them in the Name of the Cow and they mean something unrelated to Good and Evil, like they did in previous editions (ie non linear continuum), *and yet* they somehow only exist in conjunction with Good and Evil, respectively *> CLUNKY*



> I'd love to see a source on this. Because I've seen playtest drafts dating back over half a year, now, and I can tell you that in terms of alignment, some _terms_ may have changed, but the _content_ and _meanings_ have stayed pretty consistent.



http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223360


> Courtesy of Charwoman Gene from I-con, 10am session
> Alignment: [A paraphrase]
> Me: What's going on with Alignment. Are Lawful and chaotic still in the game?
> M. Mearls: There is still Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Um do we still have chaotic evil?
> ...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 19, 2008)

Yeah, Mearls at I-Con kind spilled it.

In asked him about the D&D minis alignments.  I asked him point blank if LG was still in the game.  He confirmed LG, G, U, and E.  The he muffled on CE, and the begged off as not a world guy.

LG and CE are subsections of good and evil denoting a certain specific way of being good or evil.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (May 19, 2008)

I think it would've been better to either dump Alignment entirely, or just turn it into an "Allegiance" style mechanic as in D20Modern, representing a character's dedication to a concept, rather then something like a hardwired behavior.


----------



## Andor (May 19, 2008)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> I think it would've been better to either dump Alignment entirely, or just turn it into an "Allegiance" style mechanic as in D20Modern, representing a character's dedication to a concept, rather then something like a hardwired behavior.




QFT


----------



## Phasmus (May 19, 2008)

I have a theory about the new alignment system.  I think this is primarily an elaboration on what a few other people have already expressed.

I propose that the new alignment system is linear in the Good/Evil spectrum and that WotC's mistake was in using law/chaos terminology at all.  The classical concepts of law and chaos from the old alignment system are not represented here.  Instead we get two new alignments capping the old axis of Good/Evil.  Good, Unaligned and Evil are more or less understood, so I will cover my interpretation of the additions.

Lawful Good says nothing about a character's tendency toward external law, but instead indicates that the character is uncompromising and axiomatic in its adherence to good.  A 'Good' character might be able to make a few exceptions, but a Lawful Good character will never willingly deviate from its own moral code.

Example:  I have a 3.5e character who is Neutral Good.  All he cares about is going out and saving the folks from certain mind-twistingly awful threats to reality, and he'll happily work with or against any set of laws, creeds or customs he encounters so long as it helps him achieve this.  In 4e he would be Lawful Good.  He knows what's right and what's wrong (or he thinks he does) and he's seen the results of the 'wrong' way, so he will never ever knowingly deviate from the light, even to save his own skin.

Similarly, Chaotic Evil individuals have no particular preference for using rule of law or bloodthirsty madness to bring about their dark ends, they just care about causing as much horror as possible.  Where an Evil being might be content to do evil for gain and get a kick out of harming others when convenient, a Chaotic Evil individual is wholly dedicated to inflicting harm just for the sake of doing so and might take perverse glee in ending itself if it gets to take out a lot of people at the same time in a suitably awful way.

Example:  Consider the stereotypical despotic Archmage who rules his miserable subjects with a meticulously crafted, ruthlessly efficient iron fist.  He always keeps his word and never breaks a treaty.  Textbook 3.5e Lawful Evil.  But let's take a closer look... why are his subject's miserable?  He derives no benefit from crushing them so thoroughly, indeed, keeping up the country's demoralizing awfulness is expensive both in terms of money and national security.  He's being massively evil at some cost to himself just because he can.  In 4th Edition, he's Chaotic Evil.

This seemingly futile speculation on matters that will (theoretically) be concretely resolved in a few days isn't totally pointless.  For my part, if I don't like the party line from the core books, I'll probably use the system outlined above instead.


----------



## Michael Morris (May 19, 2008)

My approach to this problem is handled in another thread because while it is a discussion of alignment, it's a discussion on an entirely different alignment system.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4229523#post4229523

That said, this improved system looks to be far worse than the old system if for no other reason than it is far less flexible.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 19, 2008)

LoneWolf23 said:
			
		

> I think it would've been better to either dump Alignment entirely, or just turn it into an "Allegiance" style mechanic as in D20Modern, representing a character's dedication to a concept, rather then something like a hardwired behavior.




And with "Allegiances," we'd be facing threads full of complaints about how Wizards is forcing assumptions on people by placing example allegiances in the core books.

And if they didn't put example allegiances, we'd get complaints about allegiances being some vague system that hardly makes a difference (or that is "nothing new").

You know what they say... you can't please all the people all the time... and if they're gamers, odds are, you can't please them any of the time.


----------



## pawsplay (May 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?




Well, why not name the alignments just Chaotic and Evil, then?


----------



## Sojorn (May 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, why not name the alignments just Chaotic and Evil, then?



He pretty much said that his preference for names would have been Lawful/Good/Evil/Chaotic/Unaligned.

Not sure what exactly he meant though as if that more accurately describes it in his mind, or if there was some other reason for it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 19, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> He pretty much said that his preference for names would have been Lawful/Good/Evil/Chaotic/Unaligned.
> 
> Not sure what exactly he meant though as if that more accurately describes it in his mind, or if there was some other reason for it.




I was speaking purely hypothetically. If we're going to have a four-point system (with "unaligned" in the center), I'd prefer L/C/E/G.

As to whether those _terms_ could accurately be applied to the system _as written_, well, I'm not sure I dare get too deeply into that.  I guess the answer depends on how one is willing to define "lawful" and "chaotic" for purposes of the game.


----------



## Sojorn (May 19, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I was speaking purely hypothetically. If we're going to have a four-point system (with "unaligned" in the center), I'd prefer L/C/E/G.
> 
> As to whether those _terms_ could accurately be applied to the system _as written_, well, I'm not sure I dare get too deeply into that.  I guess the answer depends on how one is willing to define "lawful" and "chaotic" for purposes of the game.



Ok, I think I understand, but clearly you have to be choosing your words carefully


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 19, 2008)

Phasmus said:
			
		

> I propose that the new alignment system is linear in the Good/Evil spectrum and that WotC's mistake was in using law/chaos terminology at all.  The classical concepts of law and chaos from the old alignment system are not represented here.  Instead we get two new alignments capping the old axis of Good/Evil.  Good, Unaligned and Evil are more or less understood, so I will cover my interpretation of the additions.



So a better idea would have been naming it like that, perhaps?

Exalted (Good) <-> Good <-> Unaligned <-> Evil <-> Vile (Evil)

Doesn't look too stupid. But I'm no fan of alignments in general, so YMMV.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 19, 2008)

Sojorn said:
			
		

> Ok, I think I understand, but clearly you have to be choosing your words carefully




You have no idea. I think, on the day the books officially hit shelves, I may come on here and post a multi-thousand word screed just to celebrate the fact that I _can_.


----------



## Lackhand (May 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Well, why not name the alignments just Chaotic and Evil, then?



Because they're chaotic and evil, mebbe? I mean, if it were just "Chaotic", it would imply no evil at all, and that seems wrong.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Better start typing it out now.

I still think it be funny for you to save responses you would have made to some of the things talked about on the forums if you could, 

To get back on subject.

I view what defines Lawful - Chaos and Good - Evil is.

Good is when you believe what your doing is for the betterment, or atleast not hindrance of others. Evil is when you know what your doing is for the betterment of yourself at the expense of others.

Lawful is when one willingly follows a personal or external code/laws believing it to be the proper course. Chaos is when one acts out based on instinctual thoughts and ideas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 19, 2008)

This is another torpedo below 4Ed's waterline for me.

I don't have any particular need to have an alignment system in RPGs- many I play, my favorites HERO and M&M included, don't use them- but if you're going to have an alignment system, have a_ robust_ one- and this simply isn't.

I may yet wind up playing 4Ed, but its unlikely I'll ever DM it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 19, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Because they're chaotic and evil, mebbe? I mean, if it were just "Chaotic", it would imply no evil at all, and that seems wrong.




But if they are evil, then either

1) they are either more or less evil, or
2) being chaotic is unrelated to being evil, and hence the 9 alignments make more sense


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Chaotic Evil in my eyes is a different sort of evil. Normal evil is something that must be strived for, or acknowledged by the person. You know your doing something that harms others.

Chaotic Evil on the other hand is a instinctual, primal evil. You act out this way not because of some personal goal or vendetta, but because it is instilled in you to do these things. Thus why things like Demons are Chaotic Evil since they have no greater goal besides their instinctual wish to destroy everything.


----------



## Lackhand (May 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But if they are evil, then either
> 
> 1) they are either more or less evil, or
> 2) being chaotic is unrelated to being evil, and hence the 9 alignments make more sense



3) Chaotic Evil is a type of Evil -- just calling it Chaotic reads badly, though.

I mean, why not? Now, why not have other types of evil too, would be my next question. I don't have as glib an answer yet, though 
I could conceive of having "Evil like an Old One" and "Evil like a demon" be different, but meh, they're both Chaotic Evil as far as I'm concerned, and close enough. They're both fairly different from "Evil like a Tyrant (read: Devil)" or "Evil like a Goblin", though. 

And, in fairness, "Evil like a Goblin" is not the same as "Evil like a Tyrant" -- but I'm not sure what the right way to represent that would be (a list of Evil descriptors, mebbe?). Even given the right way to represent it, would such an alignment system lead to better games? In this specific (Goblin vs Tyrant) case, though, Lawful vs Chaos isn't really the useful split -- planning, meticulousness, and other such "What's your Int score" qualities are the differences.


----------



## Clavis (May 19, 2008)

Whenever discussions of alignment break out, I try to remember what the alignment seem to actually mean in play.  After all, D&D is really just a game about killing things and taking their stuff. The only Alignment difference that matters is _why_ a character kills things and takes their stuff.

Chaotic Evil: "It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you say; I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Neutral Evil: "I'm going to kill you and take your stuff, unless you give me a good reason not to."

Lawful Evil: "Serve me, or I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Chaotic Neutral: "I might or might not kill you, but I'm taking your stuff."

Neutral: "Give me your stuff, and nobody gets hurt."

Lawful Neutral: "By any objective standard you don't deserve to keep your stuff."

Chaotic Good: "I have come to liberate you from your stuff!"

Neutral Good: "I'm going to use your stuff to benefit everybody."

Lawful Good: "In the name of the King, I am confiscating your ill-gotten stuff."

Works for me. YMMV.


----------



## Burr (May 19, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Whenever discussions of alignment break out, I try to remember what the alignment seem to actually mean in play.  After all, D&D is really just a game about killing things and taking their stuff. The only Alignment difference that matters is _why_ a character kills things and takes their stuff.
> 
> Chaotic Evil: "It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you say; I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."
> 
> ...




By those distinctions, True Neutral, Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are practically the same even in terms of motivation: I want your stuff, so I will have it (with the least perceived effort necessary).

Your Chaotic Good fails to provide a motivation at all.  It seems it would actually be, "I have come to liberate your stuff for the benefit of everyone" -- making it the practically the same motivation as Neutral Good.

Lawful Good is a bit different: "If my code allows, I will use your stuff for the good of everyone."

As such, Lawful Good is "Good With Additional Restrictions," while Chaotic Evil is "Evil with Fewer Limits."  Your True Neutral, Neutral Evil, and Lawful Evil are simply Evil; and your Chaotic Good and Neutral Good are simply Good.


----------



## pemerton (May 19, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> How can players not "get" CG, it's a very straightforward alignment.  The alignment of "rebels with a cause", just like how LE is also very straightforward as the alignment of fascist tyrants.





			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> See, I think that true Goodness implies Law (though not vice versa).  So I would tend to see "Chaotic Good" as "sorta good".



I'm with Korgoth here. Rebels with a cause who are prepared to sacrifice civilian lives and so on - that is, whose personal code and adherence to humanitarian principles is weak - are "sorta good". Rebels who adhere strictly to a code of non-violence to civilians, and who avoid (or at least regret) the deceit they practice are good. Lawful good. (Michael Walzer has an interesting discussion of the "revolutionary code" in _Just and Unjust Wars_. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I think it heads roughly in the right direction.)



			
				Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Fascism can sometimes be used for good as much as evil



I don't want to violate forum rules - so I'll just note that (given the actual historical examples of Fascist and National Socialist governments) this would be a controversial premise on which to build any system of moral analysis.



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Chaotic Evil: anarchists



I have a hard time seeing the actual anarchists of human history - Kropotkin, William Godwin, Benjamin Tucker and the like, with all their varying (perhaps flawed) theories of human freedom and human liberation - as being in the same moral category as Demogorgon.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> This will not end well



What makes you say that?


----------



## Steely Dan (May 19, 2008)

For my ongoing _Planescape _ campaign, which will be converting to 4th Ed completely next month (we're almost there now), we have gone with:

-Lawful Good
-Chatoic Good
-Good

-Lawful
-Unaligned
-Chaotic

-Lawful Evil
-Chaotic Evil
-Evil


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 19, 2008)

I'm sure this has been said, but it makes much less sense to eliminate LE than it does to eliminate CE.  NE and CE are, as far as I've ever seen or heard, almost indistinguishable.  LE, on the other hand, is probably the most interesting and distinct alignment of all of them.

My favorite treatment of LE was in the Scarred Lands setting, where the ruler of Calastia (Virduk) was undeniably a tyrant, undeniably evil, yet absolutely put the well-being of his kingdom and subjects above everything.  He was also beloved of his people.

I've got no problem with five alignments, but IMO it should have gone LG-G-U-E-LE.  Or G-LG-U-LE-E, if you subscribe to the "hourglass" model instead of the linear model.  (Why not Chaotic?  Because I think the Chaotic alignment, in general, is kinda redundant.  Nobody sane believes in unfettered freedom for everyone, and nobody sane believes that their own freedom should be unfairly curtailed.  To the extent that freedom overlaps with Good, _everybody_ Good is already there, really, and ditto for Evil ... you really can't tell me an Evil -- just Evil -- guy doesn't believe he should be free to do whatever he wants.)

Anyway, no way to say for sure until the full text is out, but this sure looks like a bad change.  It would've been better, IMO, to just have Evil-Unaligned-Good, with the two extremes being those creatures which, in 3.5 terms, would have the [evil] or [good] descriptors.  Refine those creatures -- and define everybody that's Unaligned -- by personality notes: "Devils tend to be hidebound and hierarchical.  They will usually adhere to a struck bargain, but will also usually do their best to subvert its spirit."


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE. You can just as easily read the new system as saying LG is a dilution of G, as an intensification of it. In fact, you can also say that LG sits alongside G and is neither better nor worse, just different. It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE. You can just as easily read the new system as saying LG is a dilution of G, as an intensification of it. In fact, you can also say that LG sits alongside G and is neither better nor worse, just different. It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.



I suppose that is ultimately since we haven't seen the actual descriptions of the alignments yet, have we? All the current theorizing is nice and dandy and might get us close to the designer intentions, but without the actual text, we're still just guessing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is another torpedo below 4Ed's waterline for me.
> 
> I don't have any particular need to have an alignment system in RPGs- many I play, my favorites HERO and M&M included, don't use them- but if you're going to have an alignment system, have a_ robust_ one- and this simply isn't.
> 
> I may yet wind up playing 4Ed, but its unlikely I'll ever DM it.



Robust? What system did you have in mind? Because all the Paladin and Alignment debates have shown me that the 3E alignment is anything but robust.


----------



## lutecius (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE. You can just as easily read the new system as saying LG is a dilution of G, as an intensification of it. In fact, you can also say that LG sits alongside G and is neither better nor worse, just different. It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.



I wouldn't say "more worthy", so much as "more extreme" like some zealots who follow a moral code to the letter or try to impose "goodness" on others. In warhammer, Law corresponds more or less to dnd's LG, but taken to the extreme, these ideals can be just as bad as absolute Chaos.
Also, Chris Sims wrote that the gods in the dmg were "evil or worse", so LG being somewhat beyond Good isn't such a stretch.


As for LG and CE just sitting alongside Good and Evil:


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> But if they are evil, then either
> 
> 1) they are either more or less evil, or
> 2) being chaotic is unrelated to being evil, and hence the 9 alignments make more sense



which sums up what i was trying to say in previous posts.

The best solution imo would have been to get rid of Law and Chaos altogether. If what used to be CN and LN can be lumped together into Unaligned 
(and i have no problem with that) I don't think Good and LG can be different enough to justify the separation.
I believe the only reason CE and LG are still in, especially if they don't have any mechanical effect, is because such names have been dnd trademarks for decades and they wanted to keep some of them around.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "more worthy", so much as "more extreme" like some zealots who follow a moral code to the letter or try to impose "goodness" on others. In warhammer, Law corresponds more or less to dnd's LG, but taken to the extreme, these ideals can be just as bad as absolute Chaos.




Precisely.


----------



## sckeener (May 19, 2008)

I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread....

but as far as alignments...I think it is strange that they have 5 alignments (ok I find the exclusion on LE & CG silly), but I'm not really going to care if they really removed all the mechanical effects (or most of them) of alignments from the game...i.e. detect evil, Protection from evil, etc...

I'll just ignore alignments or maybe go to allegiances.


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE.



Which is the exact reason I started the thread.  Going back to alignment discussions in the past (since we have no 4e definitions, I've got nothing else from which to pull), the majority of the time that I've seen anyone try to line things up, it's been to place LG at the top of the heap, CG as nigh-neutral, and CE as the most wicked.

The main thrust of my origin post was, "Hey, this is my gut reaction to the terms I saw.  That interpretation makes me more than a bit uneasy.  Could someone who saw the books at the 'open house' events, a play-tester, or some WotC staffer please tell me I'm wrong and not to worry.


----------



## TerraDave (May 19, 2008)

Hmm. There _is_ a basis for the 9 point alignment system: *Morality vs. Ethics*. 

I guess what this is saying is that you can be 

G: particularly moral, 
E: particularly immoral, 
LG: particularly moral and ethical, 
CE: particularly immoral and unethical
UA: moral and ethical some, but not all, the time. 

But just being unethical, or just ethical, or ethical but immoral, or moral but unethical, are out. Of course, you can always _define _ morality and ethics to make this true...but are you loosing some interesting rp posibilities in the process?


----------



## GreatLemur (May 19, 2008)

Man, I was really hoping 4e was gonna make more progress in this area.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Hmm. There _is_ a basis for the 9 point alignment system: *Morality vs. Ethics*.
> 
> I guess what this is saying is that you can be
> 
> ...




I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.



I don't think there was ever a good definition, game-wise.  No matter how you cut it, you have to fudge the definition of "ethics" a bit.  Some people are going to call it "respect for society", then promptly confuse "society" with "other people" which automatically makes lawful more good.

Others are going to say that it's a context of having ordered thinking, including personal codes.  That runs completely counter to some 1e text on the subject that explicitly says chaotics pretty frequently have personal codes, they are just personal, rather than based on social conventions.  It also tends to push things in the direction of "lawful == sane, chaotic == insane", which is a bloody worthless and stupid core mechanic for a game that doesn't have that as a strong theme (e.g. Cthulhu, Cyberpunk).

I've always figured the ethics indicated how you processed your morals.  Lawfuls tend to think in terms of societies and groups.  Chaotics think of individuals and situations.  Neutrals tended to see the value in each.  You want your laws made by LG people because they are thinking of the stable framework that provides for the best chance of good being done as a rule.  You want CG cops because they will be looking at you and the situation as it exists right now and will be focusing on what's going to be best for the people actually present, rather than the precedent being set or how their decision would work if turned into a rule.  Judges are best in between because they need to look at both what's before them in the specific case and how their ruling will impact the way other pieces of the system function.  Sometimes things work best other ways, but that's a general outline that worked well enough for me.


----------



## Wepwawet (May 19, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> ...but are you loosing some interesting rp posibilities in the process?



Not really 

I love that all monsters get a short description of their behaviour. To me this is infinitely better than giving one of 9 alignments that people don't even agree on what they mean. This allows me to roleplay their part better.


----------



## Tervin (May 19, 2008)

To me the real issue is not what the old alignments stood for. It is not whether the new system is linear or not. it is simply - "What can we use the alignment system for?"

First of all, alignment is not at all important in character development for me. Both PCs and NPCs get their alignments as an afterthought. And, in general the label never really matters.

Still some of you might have noticed that I kind of dislike this new system.   Why?

Because alignments are useful for setting up broad conflicts within a setting. It gives me as a DM a shorthand for describing groups, tribes and monsters (not every individual of them, but general trends). In the fantasy story you tend to have a conflict between A and B, and the hero/heroes choose one of the sides, fighting for it in various ways. The standard heroic story is about good fighting evil. And that is fine. It is easy to get into, and works especially well when you don't want too much philosophy an debate in the way of the action. The weakness is that the heroes don't really have a real choice in how they are going to act.

And sometimes you want to challenge the players. You want them to make a choice where right and wrong aren't obvious. The easiest way is the dark story, where both sides are evil and your heroes have to decide which is the lesser of them, or which can easiest somehow be influenced to do good instead. This sort of story is also fine, the longest campaign I ever played was one of those, and lots of fun was had there. But this story often has the problem that the characters don't really get to feel like heroes. They feel like they are forced to work for something they don't like. Too much of that, and frustration takes over.

Any other solutions? Good vs Good? I have played one campaign in the 80s that tried that as a subtheme, but then using the LG paladin civilization vs the CG "barbarians". It is doable, but best as political conflict rather than military. "Good" doesn't really want to kill "good" after all, even if they worship the wrong gods or have unacceptable laws.

Unaligned vs Unaligned? (Unaligned vs Evil works as a less powerful subset of Good vs Evil, as does Good vs Unaligned.) Well this is probably where I will have to go with future storylines myself, if I want to stick to the official rules. This works fine, you can yourself invent why the conflict is there, and the heroes can both debate which is side is really right and actually want to defend the side that they choose to work with. The heroes will often change sides in these kinds of conflicts, or work for both sides at once. Fun stuff.

The 1.0 to 3.x solution here was usually to run Law vs Chaos, which meant that you could use lots of stuff both from MMs and various fluff descriptions to help you along. Good and evil characters could show up on both sides, which could make for very colourful storylines and battles. And what stops me from doing Law vs Chaos in 4th edition? Nothing. But on the other hand, if the rules have alignments where chaotic is a subset of evil and lawful is a subset of good, then it does seem a lot harder, doesn't it? 

What I think will be the loss for my way of writing in 4Ed is the lack of creative support from the game. Races, cultures, organizations and monsters will mainly be made for the Good vs Evil mindset. I can still use their creations, but I will probably need to tweak it all, at least from a fluff point of view. 

If I am the only DM who feels this way, then their choice is absolutley correct. But if there is a more significant minority who like the kind of stuff that I talked about here, then they have made a mistake. After all, the options added by a Law vs Chaos element doesn't really take away anything from the Good vs Evil. Or am I just being a whiny old fart?


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 19, 2008)

I've always found the alignment system to be a great shorthand for describing a character's general attitude about the universe, but I can see why some folks would play without any alignment system at all.

Part of the problem (besides folks disagreeing about the definitions of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil), is that WotC made the Chaos-Law axis a universal axis, on par with Good-Evil, (basically defining Lawful as those that want a universe of sentient beings and physical laws, and Chaotic as those who want to destroy the universe).  Honestly, the addition of Protection and Detect spells of Chaos and Law supports this idea, but I never saw it that way, myself, and it was clearly not the case in earlier iterations if D&D (see the 2e alignment descriptions).  Whatever--its the designer's sandbox--but now that they've made Chaos and Law universal concepts, that means the older alignment system isn't as elegant.

However, I've always seen *only* the Good-Evil axis as universal.  IMC, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, with champions on both sides vying for victory over the other, and how a character acts in the universe places him or her somewhere on that axis.  The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil.  Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere.  Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act.   Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'.  That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful. 

Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.

So, to say you are Lawful doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road.  Lawful means you abide by a set of laws.  Period.  Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever.  The point is that you follow them.

Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc.

Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis.  A character could easily and clearly be Chaotic and a champion of Good, or Lawful and a champion of Evil.  (There are plenty of examples for both of these attitudes in RL and fiction, as others have pointed out).

The idea of Neutral in the old system seems to be a sticking point with some folks, because its perfectly reasonable for someone who is Neutral on either axis to be there for different reasons.  For instance, the character could be truly Neutral, refusing or not caring to take sides between Good and Evil.  Or perhaps he or she is Neutral on the way from one end of the axis to the other, (since alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how a character would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past, they're in a constant state of flux).

So the two crossing, but independent axes--Good-Evil and Chaos-Law--make a lot of sense to me, and open characters up to a wider variety of attitudes.  Why have one descriptor--Good--for both CG and NG, if players want to make that distinction?  And how can it be that everyone who obeys a set of laws does so to further the cause of Good?  Characters should have the freedom to walk the thin lines between all of these forces, and change their minds as they go, just like us.

Me, I'm gonna stick with the older system, and if Protection From and Detect Good/Evil go missing from 4e, I'm going to add them back.


----------



## TerraDave (May 19, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Hmm. There _is_ a basis for the 9 point alignment system: *Morality vs. Ethics*.
> 
> I guess what this is saying is that you can be
> 
> ...




Lets try some examples:

*Tony Stark:* taking someone topical. In the movie (before capture), and many comics, under the old system he is basically LN (leaning to G). He does the _right_ thing, maybe not the good thing. He is pretty ethical, not always moral. In the new system he is just unaligned, sometime good. 

*Darth Vader: * classic LE. He is restoring peace to the galaxy, one destroyed planet at a time. He has ethics, as far as he is concerned he is ethics. Not so moral. New system, juts evil. 

*Captain Jack Sparrow: * old system, somewhere between chaotic to chaotic good. He is not bound by conventions, or really anything. But definatly not chaotic evil. New system, a sometimes good, sometimes unaligned maverik, like Tony Stark. Basically, under the new system, the two converge, with the fact that Stark generally works in the system (or _is_ the system), and Sparrow outside it (and fights it), not affecting their alingment.


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (May 19, 2008)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Man, I was really hoping 4e was gonna make more progress in this area.




I agree. This is one of the few areas in 4E that I am concerned about being dissapointed with.

Good/Unaligned/Evil I was fine with. Even Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic/Unaligned I could have dealt with. But the inclusion of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil worries me. I'll wait until I read the description but from where I am, this looks like a miss from Wizards.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

sckeener said:
			
		

> (ok I find the exclusion on LE & CG silly)




I keep seeing this and similar statements throughout this thread and the other one.  It actually seems to argue well for the new system.  Few people are lamenting the "loss" of NG or LN or CN or NE, just LE and CG.  Of course, they haven't actually been lost.  There is a new system, they didn't take things away.  Instead of 9 arbitrary, made up divisions there are 5.  You can still write up the worst tyrant your game world has ever seen, and under the alignment line in your little form you can write: Evil.  

The two axis were never equal and the law/chaos axis was never consistent.  It was warped by the good/axis at all times.  Chaotic Evil was considered (rightly so) destructive.  But CG wasn't.  It was considered independent.  

The lawful spectrum was inconsistent.  LG was the height of ethics, compassionate justice and order.  LN was the bureaucrat, the police officer, societies law above all over consideration.  Then LE was the tyrant, order through subjugation, power through the might of social order, etc.  Lawful is inconsistent as an ideal throughout the spectrum, it is wholly a byproduct of the good-evil axis.

Same for chaos.  CG was the individualist do-gooder.  CN was practically considered insane (and called as much in previous editions) and random.  And CE was all about destruction.  Chaotic was an inconsistent descriptor that described a degree along the good-evil axis.  

The good and evil axis was entirely consistent.  Good was good.  There were different approaches to good, but the end goals were the same.  All good characters were ultimately on the same "side".  Evil was evil in the same way, while there were different approaches as well.  That was a consistent and solid axis.  You can't say the same for lawful and chaotic types.  

I don't think the new system is perfect either, and likely will simply not use alignment in my games except in a vague sense.  But nothing has been taken away or combined.  The descriptive spectrum has been redesigned.  Looking back along the old law-chaos axis - a tyrant is Evil, a bureaucrat is unaligned, and a person of the highest moral and ethical standards is LG (which is not "gooder than good", its about that character believing that ultimate good comes through social order).  A freedom loving do gooder is Good, an individualist above all else is Unaligned, and someone or thing devoted to destruction is CE.  

The designers were right.  There isn't must difference between NG and CG or NE and LE.  A NE noble who gains power over a province would rule it pretty much the same as a LE character would.  Sure, one might actually believe in his own brand of brutal justice more, but both will use the tyrannical social order to subjugate their people and maintain control.  A NG and CG character either one would help the downtrodden, stand up against social injustice, etc., even while having slightly different social philosophies overall.  So just going with Good and Evil still leaves you plenty of room to craft a personality under those broad umbrellas and still have the descriptor carry some meaning.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (May 19, 2008)

I LOVE the old system and will stick to it!

Most people are only "mildly aligned", it's just useful flavour for TYPICAL actions, and they make perfect sense to me.

In a fantasy world, alginment is not a joke, as it is here, in many such places, you could be executed for being "evil", there could be wars between law and chaos, etc.

There are no devils or einhirar etc on our world, so, when imaging other places, their philosophies are vital, look at it here, environmentalism; Buddhism, the 3 Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism etc...look how serious they are to people.
If you added in literal, physical gods or their servants..._woooha_!!!
That's one thing Planescape really got and worked on 

And also, alignment is just perfect for DMs to have a simple guide to a creature's likely actions, merley using two letters:

CG elf, ok, not gonna be bothered by laws and rulers, but will respect folk's lives etc.

LE hobgoblin, probbaly gonna be very honourable, but also vicious and eliminates enemies.

However, that's just general traits, not straight jackets.

4th ed seems great to me, Great Wheel..ok I can see where they are coming form with removing it, but they shouldn't have abandoned the alignment system, just reinforced it as a general attitude of creatures, not hard rules, except in extreme cases, like paladins, devils etc who either strive to portray those ideals, or are innately tied to them.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> *Darth Vader: * classic LE. He is restoring peace to the galaxy, one destroyed planet at a time. He has ethics, as far as he is concerned he is ethics. Not so moral. New system, juts evil.




First, "just" evil is enough.  Second, I would dispute Vader as an example as LE.  The Emperor is CE.  He plays at the law and order thing, but his ultimate Sith-y goal is destruction.  Vader is NE.  His goal from the beginning was to gain as much power as he could, to even overcome death.  His motivator was personal power.  A good example of LE would be Grand Moff Tarkin.  

But the Star Wars villians are also the perfect example of the weakness of the law/chaos axis.  The important trait of all of those4 characters was their Evil, not their personal philosophies.  It was their willingness to murder, destroy, enslave, subjugate that the Rebellion opposed.  

And the Rebellion was not devoted to Chaos, as many want to claim rebels are.  Han Solo's arc went from CN(g) to, really, NG.  Luke went from NG to LG.  Leia was always LG.  But, in essense, they were simply on the side of good.  And, of course, the original trilogy is one of the hallmarks of classic Good versus Evil, helping highlight that that was always the axis that mattered in the old two axis alignment system.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2008)

I like the sound of the new system much more than the old system. I'll even be happy if 'lawful good' stands for 'extra-good' and chaotic evil stands for 'extra-evil' because, in truth, that is pretty much how those alignments worked out in all the past games I've played.

C'mon, how often is lawful good portrayed as stupidly good, extra-boyscouty? How often is chaotic good (or even neutral good) used as the 'roguishly good' version? Similarly lawful evil often shows up as 'urbane evil', or 'evil that keeps its word' while CE is the 'massacre babies for breakfast' setting.

One simple linear scale at least makes it considerably easier for DMs and players to all get on the same page with what alignments mean, rather than mess around with shades of meaning which get interpreted differently by different people. Heck, I've even come across three different understanding of what constitutes 'LE' behaviour (still!) in a gaming group that have known each other for 30 years. 

Cheers


----------



## Tervin (May 19, 2008)

I read "the good vs exil axis is what mattered from the start".

I think "So why not have a system that encourages diversity? If one part of a system is the popular one, should the other part be thrown away, or given some extra thought?"

I read "this system is how I always played anyway".

I think "But what about all these people here who seem to think differently? Even if you don't want to play things in a certain way, do you want it to be taken away from others? Even if they can keep theirs without you losing anything?"

I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".

I think "Does that matter? Every interpretation a player or DM makes helps them along in their creativity. If we think and imagine differently, we get more ideas and imagination. Alignments are there as tools to use in character building and story/campaign construction. A set of tools that can be used in many ways is then better than a set that is streamlined for a certain way. This is especially true if alignment no longer has gameplay significance." 

I like almost everything I have seen about 4th Edition. But this? Not so much. This seems to be simplification that dumbs down when it streamlines. And that seems stupid to defend.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> "So why not have a system that encourages diversity?




9 is diverse, 5 is not?



> do you want it to be taken away from others




Nothing was "taken away".  The system was redesigned.  That's like claiming, when served a pizza with sausage and mushrooms, that anchovies and green peppers were taken away.



> This seems to be simplification that dumbs down when it streamlines




But 9 was a complex, worldly summation of morality and ethics, so succinct and all encompassing that it is a genuine surprise its not being taught as the standard in Philosophy courses?

Please, both are a simple, "dumbed down" descriptive framework for modeling characters in a fantasy game. 



> And that seems stupid to defend




It seems stupid to me for people to claim that having "only" five alignments means certain characters and villians are now "impossible" to make and that it limits what can be done.  But here we are...


----------



## pawsplay (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.




 My Ethics professor said they were the same.


----------



## Tervin (May 19, 2008)

Sometimes it feels like some people really work hard at not understanding what I mean. Or perhaps I was that unclear? In that case, I am sorry.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> 9 is diverse, 5 is not?



Having both a Good vs Evil conflict and a Law vs Chaos conflict independent of each other is diverse compared to only having a Good vs Evil conflict. Alignments are primitive and sometimes stupid tools, but that does not mean that they should be used as primitively as possible.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Nothing was "taken away".  The system was redesigned.



Hmm both the earlier games and this one are called "Dungeons & Dragons" This one claims to be the new edition of it. In the old system the Law vs Chaos (independent of Good vs Evil) existed. Now it does not. The Good vs Evil existed before, and does now. Yes it is a redesign. And it is a redesign that takes something away. 



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> But 9 was a complex, worldly summation of morality and ethics, so succinct and all encompassing that it is a genuine surprise its not being taught as the standard in Philosophy courses?



Of course not. It was bad. This is worse. Ok? As for why it is worse, see above.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Please, both are a simple, "dumbed down" descriptive framework for modeling characters in a fantasy game.



Yes, agreed. But the new system is more dumbed down. (See above.) And, once more, the interesting part is not just modeling individual characters, it is modeling trends in races, cultures, organizations as well as characters and monsters. Alignment is useful for story- and worldbuilding more than it is for character building.



			
				Thasmodious said:
			
		

> It seems stupid to me for people to claim that having "only" five alignments means certain characters and villians are now "impossible" to make and that it limits what can be done.  But here we are...



 Well I could go through the whole concept of thinking bigger than just individuals again, but that seems unnecessary. Instead I will agree once more. It would be stupid to say it is impossible to do those things. It would be true to say it is harder to convey certain concepts when the shorthand for it is no longer there. No alignment system makes anything impossible. The new one suggests that certain concepts will not get the support they used to have, as WotC will create their products using their new dumbed down shorthand. And that is actually what I care about. Not what people get to write under Alignment on a character sheet, and what they mean by it.


----------



## pawsplay (May 19, 2008)

My Star Wars alignments:

LN - Princess Leia, who sacrificed Dantooine for the Rebel cause, does the wrong things for the right reasons; Lando Calrissian, who despite his reputation as a "scoundrel," is a responsible leader and someone who pursues gain, but within certain limits of what is acceptable
LG - Yoda, who does the right thing in the right way; Padme, who believes in the system
NG - Kenobi, who follows his heart and does the right thing; Chewbacca, loyal, passionate, does not overthink the right thing to do
CG - Luke and Qui Gon, whose quest for good forces them in directions others don't understand
N - Han, "There's no mystical force that controls _my_ destiny."
CE - Darth Vader, who knows what Vader wants and does what he does to get it, or does what he feels like instead, or occasionally thinks he is Good or Lawful
NE - Darth Sidious, devoted to power for its own sake, at any price; Jango Fett, a simple man just trying to make his way in the Galaxy
LE - Moff Tarkin, who believes in order and security, and too bad for those outside that order; Jabba the Hutt, whose bad side you don't want to get on, but is benevolent in his own, bullying, sociopathic way as an employer


----------



## Spatula (May 19, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".
> 
> I think "Does that matter?"



Yes, it matters.  What's the point of a rule if everyone interprets it differently?  What do you do with printed products written by different authors that have different ideas of what the alignments mean - in relation to _each other_, nevermind to the reader?

Plus, hopefully this will spell the doom of the endless D&D alignment debates.  Is Batman LG or CG?!?  Should a paladin lose his powers when the DM puts him in a no-win situation?!  Fie to all of that.  They should have gotten rid of alignment entirely.


----------



## Tervin (May 19, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, it matters.  What's the point of a rule if everyone interprets it differently?  What do you do with printed products written by different authors that have different ideas of what the alignments mean - in relation to _each other_, nevermind to the reader?
> 
> Plus, hopefully this will spell the doom of the endless D&D alignment debates.  Is Batman LG or CG?!?  Should a paladin lose his powers when the DM puts him in a no-win situation?!  Fie to all of that.  They should have gotten rid of alignment entirely.




I have played D&D since the very early 80s and confess to never hearing a D&D alignment debate regarding a superhero till I read alignment discussions concering changes from 3.5 to 4... So, for me that has not been a problem for the game as such. Alignment debates I have heard though. Lots. And my view is that alignment debates can help creativity, that different interpretations means more new ideas for what kind of characters, ideologies, religions and organisations you can have in a fantasy world. Debate is healthy, everyone agreeing is stale.

As alignment (from what I understand) is more or less only fluff in 4ed, it does not matter if different authors see things differently. It could very well just make the end products more interesting.

Still, I agree that it would be better to take away alignment than to make this change. And in my home game it will be tweaked (into G, L, U, C, E) or removed entirely, the way it looks right now at least.


----------



## Mallus (May 19, 2008)

Ah yes... another edition, another alignment system to more-or-less ignore. The more things change...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 19, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Ah yes... another edition, another alignment system to more-or-less ignore. The more things change...




Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> My Ethics professor said they were the same.



And what did your Morals professor say on the issue?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".
> 
> I think "Does that matter? Every interpretation a player or DM makes helps them along in their creativity.




I'll give an example for why I think it matters.

One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.

DM tells player of LE monk that he is going to lose his LE alignment (and thus lose the ability to progress as a monk) because a LE character must obey the laws of the land (!)

This difference in interpretations on what constitutes LE, effectively flagged up "LE" as a bizarrely unplayable alignment in that DMs campaign - but too late to help the player of the monk.

The other thing I'd say on the issue of alignment is that this thread is the first one I can remember where some people are actively defending the idea of the 9 way alignment system. Pretty much every other thread about alignment in ENworlds history has largely been about the problems it causes, and even amongst those who espouse it there is very little agreement about what it actually means.

Cheers


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.



Actually I'd say it is much less comic book styled. Before it was, "because of your actions you have been determined to be, NE, so you go to this plane and are allies with this, blah, blah, blah". 

Now with how* I* have read the 4e alignment it is much more about how the individual person has developed this personal view of the world and why they act this way.


A Chaotic Evil person in my eyes, acts out in instinctual, primal manner to something they fear or detest. They act because of this hatred, fear or detest in a way that is detrimental to the subject. Thus why things like Orcs or Demons are Chaotic Evil.

You could even have a Paladin serving a "good god" and be Chaotic Evil, because he instinctual fear and detests certain beings like say Tieflings and would immediately wish their demise.


A plain Evil character knows that what they are doing is for the betterment of themselves at the cost of others. Thus why things like Devils are just Evil since they know what their doing is to get ahead at the cost of those other Devils.


While with Lawful Good they believe that by following a strict code of laws set by either themselves or an outside force they are bettering themselves and others.

Thus you can have your classic Lawful Good Paladin. BUT! You could also have a tyrannical evil king who believes his laws will help his people, even if they are cruel and perverse.


Just plain good, is when simply wishes to help himself and the world at large, not because of any strict law or code they follow but because they feel that is the proper course of action.

Now like with my previous examples what that person identifies as good can change. What sets it apart from Evil is they truly believe what their doing also benefits others.


Unaligned are simply those who are well unaligned. They have no wish to better themselves or others beyond their immediate concerns or to better their position at the expense of others like Evil. Nor do they have a strict code they follow or an instinctual sense that their controlled by. They simply exist to live through life as best they can.


----------



## Spatula (May 19, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'll give an example for why I think it matters.
> 
> One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.
> 
> ...



Yes, exactly.  Thankfully they're getting rid of alignment restrictions on stuff, so that DM-player disagreements on what the character's alignment means can no longer result in characters losing their powers.

Additionally, in 1e (and 2e? I don't recall on that score), changing your alignment carried heavy XP penalties, so the alignment debate with the DM could screw over the players there, too.  "Sorry, you're no longer Lawful, you lose a class level."

The point of game rules is that their meaning is well-understood by the people using them.  If they are not, they serve only to grind games to a halt as people argue over the meaning of "stunned." (or whatever)  One of the best things that 3e did in this regard (and 4e is continuing) is having well-defined words that clearly define how abilities work (i.e. target is dazed for 3 rounds, where "dazed" has a common meaning that doesn't allow for creative interpretations).  Without that, the quality of your play experience is directly related to how well your view of the rules matches up with the views of those that you are playing with - which makes it harder to find groups to play with.

*shudders at the memories of playing Games Workshop wargames*


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 19, 2008)

*Fallen Seraph* - That's fine for how you'll run it in your games, but I don't for a moment believe that's what it is written down like in the 4E books, nor is it how NPCs, monsters and so on will be aligned. I mean, if someone can be effectively evil and tyrannical yet "LG", that kind of removes the point of E and CE, to me, because who seriously thinks that they're evil outside of the comic books? That's just not how people think. Even the greatest villains in history largely decieve themselves into thinking they're "doing good".

Honestly, it sounds like the Evil characters in your games have more of a "moral compass" than the Good ones, too, which is fascinatingly bizarre. You might as well re-name Evil to "Self-aware" and Good to "Self-deluding" or something.

Edit - In case anyone gets me wrong, I'm totally down with removing the mechanical links to alignment, I'm just deeply puzzled by their apparently decision to include a version of "super-good" and "super-evil" and label them with existing D&D alignment names.


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (May 19, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I like the sound of the new system much more than the old system. I'll even be happy if 'lawful good' stands for 'extra-good' and chaotic evil stands for 'extra-evil' because, in truth, that is pretty much how those alignments worked out in all the past games I've played.
> 
> C'mon, how often is lawful good portrayed as stupidly good, extra-boyscouty? How often is chaotic good (or even neutral good) used as the 'roguishly good' version? Similarly lawful evil often shows up as 'urbane evil', or 'evil that keeps its word' while CE is the 'massacre babies for breakfast' setting.




I can except this, but if this is the intent, they should have changed the names I think.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> *Fallen Seraph*Even the greatest villains in history largely decieve themselves into thinking they're "doing good".



Well that is sorta the point, a in real-life dictator would be "lawful good" because in his eyes he is using the law to do good.

Now, if he was using laws only to better himself, that be evil. Since while he may not consider himself "evil" (these terms would never actually exist in-game), he knows all his goals are self-centred and only for his own good.

While a good person would truly believe they can make a positive difference in the world be good because of that mindset.

I wouldn't say it is super-good or super-evil either, again through my eyes. Since as shown LG certainly can be not pleasant or good as we looking in would view it. Nor is CE always viewed by those who know of a person who is such.


----------



## see (May 19, 2008)

Either the system conflates Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil, or it doesn't.  

If it conflates them, then the system is linear. Which is the same as one-dimensional.  Suddenly a character who, say, believes that the existence of laws and government is inherently oppressive and evil is automatically less good than one who believes in order.

If it doesn't conflate them, then it just deliberately blurs potentially useful distinctions.  We can argue endlessly about where the exact border is between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, but that character who believes that the existence of laws is inherently oppressive and evil is not Neutral Good and never was.  Sure, there's no _need_ to keep him distinct, but what need is there to keep Lawful Good distinct from Good, either?  Just declare them _all_ Good.


----------



## Geek-Zilla (May 19, 2008)

I've always had a problem with the alignment system for PCs in D&D.  I just found it rather limiting to say that an "evil" character lacks the capacity for generosity, and a "good" character lacks the ability to be cruel (and the implied penalties for going outside that box).  Now alignments for NPCs and monsters, I have no problem with because it helps establish a frame work for that individual's (or group's) motivation in a given situation.

I'll be interested in how 4E explains the different alignments in the core books.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 19, 2008)

I honestly don't even see the need to use Lawful or Chaotic to define either. Good, Evil and Unaligned, while relative, seem simple enough.

Although I do like the fact that alignment seems to be an afterthought in 4E, and is entirely optional without any strict mechanics in place to "manage" it.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 19, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.




The 3x3 grid is way more comic book-y than the new system.


----------



## Korgoth (May 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well that is sorta the point, a in real-life dictator would be "lawful good" because in his eyes he is using the law to do good.




You're good or evil depending upon the objective content of your actions.  You can tell yourself that starving off a million peasant farmers is "for the greater good", but you're still evil because you starved a bunch of innocent people to death.  It doesn't matter why you did it, or under what "internal description".  Good and evil are structural properties of actions.  A person is called good or evil depending upon whether the structure of his actions habitually conform to one or the other.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> You're good or evil depending upon the objective content of your actions.  You can tell yourself that starving off a million peasant farmers is "for the greater good", but you're still evil because you starved a bunch of innocent people to death.  It doesn't matter why you did it, or under what "internal description".  Good and evil are structural properties of actions.  A person is called good or evil depending upon whether the structure of his actions habitually conform to one or the other.



By that token then, a Lawful Good Paladin would be Evil because Devils think him so for killing them off.

Thus why I am talking about how each NPC, Monster, PCs internal view is their alignment, not how they are viewed by others.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 19, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The 3x3 grid is way more comic book-y than the new system.




No, it isn't.

4E's system conflates Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil. It's pretty much impossible to get more 1950s comic-book than that, I'd suggest. 

3x3 may be a bit 1960s Jack Kirby at Marvel "great order of the universe" sort of thing, but it's essentially a more complex, nuanced way of describing people, and less like some bad 1950s media drivel.

Either system was seeming pretty silly and retrograde in the 1980s, let alone 2008, but at least the 3x3 grid had the happy advantage of mapping to epic fantasy a bit better than 4E's one. Particularly considering how many characters in epic fantasy (other than Tolkien's stuff) are good example of someone who is extremely good, but doesn't seem to believe that "Law = Good", or more importantly, how many ultra-villains are really all about the "order", and certainly don't fit any previous "CE" mould.


----------



## Korgoth (May 20, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> By that token then, a Lawful Good Paladin would be Evil because Devils think him so for killing them off.
> 
> Thus why I am talking about how each NPC, Monster, PCs internal view is their alignment, not how they are viewed by others.




No, that's the opposite of my point.  You're casting it as if the two choices are "you're good if you think so" and "you're good if others think so".

I'm maintaining that being good or evil has absolutely nothing to do with what anybody thinks.  It depends entirely on what you do.  If what you do is objectively good, done with full knowledge and consent and a firm habit, then you're good... regardless of what anyone thinks.  If what you do is objectively evil, done with full knowledge and consent and a firm habit, then you're evil, regardless of what anyone (including yourself) thinks.


----------



## Quantarum (May 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.



Someone can do perfectly horrible things and still be ethical within the framework of their circumstances, but morals are supposed to be consistent across all situations. This is why moral dilemmas are more profound than ethical ones. Cutting open someone's chest and removing their still beating heart is ethically acceptable for both Aztec priests and heart surgeons, but the moral implications are far different. This is just my opinion based on the classes on ethics I had to take at work.
  I do wonder if the extreme alignments were added simply for the benefit of the far realms and demons, representing philosophies of pure nilism opposed by the yet unseen beatific lawful good entities. 
  Never mind, that sounds too much like needless symmetry.

-Q.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 20, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> at least the 3x3 grid had the happy advantage of mapping to epic fantasy a bit better than 4E's one




No. The 3x3 grid was piss-poor for epic fantasy.


----------



## Byronic (May 20, 2008)

Personally I would rather see the Lawful - Neutral - Chaostic as inclinations while we can keep Good - Neutral - Bad as a more moral spectrum (with neutral representing matters from a philosophical view to simple indifference), Good and Evil being somewhat more dedicated. 

Lawful represents an inclination towards order, stability etc, which one finds in different things from loyalty to laws to other matters while Chaotic has other preferences. To explain a few examples.

What happens when a CE and a LE person come into a good society. The Chaotic Evil person might kill rampage as much as he wants. He might take steps so that nobody else finds out but he feels no real need to work within the law. The Lawful Evil person might take other steps. A smear campaign to get himself elected for example where he can use whatever holes he can find in the system to benefit himself. It's not that the LE person wouldn't break a law it's that he wouldn't break laws that will get him kicked out of the halls of power. Tax Fraud and a bit of embezzlement would be a nice way to get money while a CE person might want to rob a bank. he difference is that a white collar crime is more socially acceptable and he can always build up again if it really goes wrong. Lawful Evil people are more likely to have ties to the society because society is important for them (as it is orderly, has rules it can exploit etc) while CE doesn't care as much as long since it probably wants a more free lifestyle.

A Lawful Good and Lawful Evil person can both be relied upon to keep their word (especially if it's done publically). The LG Paladin might do this because it's one of his rules. He wishes to be good and follows the code to be good. Keeping ones word is one of the things we need in a society. The Lawful Evil baron can be trusted to keep his word as well. But that's because if he doesn't no one will trust his word any more and he can't work within the orderly mainframe (carrot and stick method doesn't work as well when people don't believe in the carrot)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 20, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The other thing I'd say on the issue of alignment is that this thread is the first one I can remember where some people are actively defending the idea of the 9 way alignment system. Pretty much every other thread about alignment in ENworlds history has largely been about the problems it causes, and even amongst those who espouse it there is very little agreement about what it actually means.




I think the general line has been "9 way alignment was flawed, but much better then the new one."

Honestly, I think the big gripe is that Lawful now equals good.  If you're going to cut the law/chaos axis, cut the whole thing.  Don't make lawful = good and chaotic = evil.  Darth Vader is suddenly _less evil_ because he's bringing order to the galaxy.  Robin Hood is suddenly _less good_ because his method of fighting is through banditry.

Here's where the big end problem of this is - if you have a setting where there's a lawful evil empire, you can't fight against it.  Because that's unlawful, and chaos = evil.  Likewise, if you find a merry group of bandits, you have to turn them in, because they're evil for not being lawful.


----------



## smetzger (May 20, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Yeah it would have been better to remove them completely rather than remove some. Though unaligned was very much needed.




Dang, I thought they had fixed this.  Why not just good, neutral, and evil?

Now we can have arguments about what is Good and what is Lawful Good, yipee.


----------



## Andor (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I think the general line has been "9 way alignment was flawed, but much better then the new one."
> 
> Honestly, I think the big gripe is that Lawful now equals good.  If you're going to cut the law/chaos axis, cut the whole thing.  Don't make lawful = good and chaotic = evil.  Darth Vader is suddenly _less evil_ because he's bringing order to the galaxy.  Robin Hood is suddenly _less good_ because his method of fighting is through banditry.
> 
> Here's where the big end problem of this is - if you have a setting where there's a lawful evil empire, you can't fight against it.  Because that's unlawful, and chaos = evil.  Likewise, if you find a merry group of bandits, you have to turn them in, because they're evil for not being lawful.




I do think it worked better int the original WHFRPG where it was Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic where it was important to note that Lawful was not good and Chaotic was not evil although the distinction there was more academic. If either Chaos or Law had won it would have been the end of the world.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 20, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> IHonestly, I think the big gripe is that Lawful now equals good.




The only facts you have are that Lawful Good and Good exist.

You also have a playtester/freelancer winking and nudging at my ideas saying that something that at least shows the idea of the way alginments have shifted and my ideas are nothing like your understanding.

Try this one.  There are two poles of Cosmic Philosophy, good and evil.  "Alignment" means you have taken an interest in devoting yourself to acheiving the goals of that pole.  The are two Sub Categories.  "Lawful" Good is a subcategory for people who are good, but tie themselves to a defined code.  "Chaotic" Evil is the subcategory of Evil that are beyond selfishnes and into raw destruction.

Order and Chaos are awesome for use as cosmic poles, but only in a relativistic G/E framework.  Good and Evil at the same time higlight the alieness of these poles and ruin their applicability.


----------



## Clavis (May 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.




Morals define what a given society views as acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a broad sense. Ethics defines  the acceptable way to do what a society allows as moral. Morals are what is allowed; ethics are the proper way to do it. For example, in the United States it is _moral_ to make a monetary profit. It is not _ethical_, however, to make a profit by selling defective goods, or deceiving your customers.


----------



## Michael Morris (May 20, 2008)

As I stated when introducing my own alignment system the problem with "good" and "evil" is they are not values - they are judgments.

The problem quickly magnifies once real values are brought into play.  Someone who values nature will call the callous destruction of habitat 'evil.'  Some call killing for any reason 'evil' while others hold that mitigating circumstances count and self defense (usually) makes things ok.  Giving a beggar money seems good - but by enabling him to continue begging aren't you doing an evil thing to him (if begging didn't work he'd get a job).

I realized this pitfall in Good/Evil based alignment systems a long time ago and only moved away from them reluctantly - prior to that time I'd written several essays defending the old 9 point alignment system.  So I moved to an alignment system of interlinked value pairs.

Very brief version: (Long version here)
Gold - represents Order and community.  Opposed by Red (Chaos) and Silver (Individualism)
Blue - represents Logic and Artifice. Opposed by Green (Nature) and Red (Emotion).
Silver - represents Individualism and Death. Opposed by Green (Life) and Gold (Community)

While the system has antagonistic and sympathetic relationships I could expound several pages on - the key to the system is that these alignments are non-exclusive (why that is so is beyond the scope of this post). An individual can possess the self-contradicting alignment of Gold/Silver.  Indeed, these five base alignments can form 41 possible combinations, which is a far greater depth and scope than this new 4e system could ever hope to deal with and well beyond the capacity of the two axis 9 point alignment system.

The fun part though is these alignments call each other evil all the time - but in truth it's the actions the possessors of the alignment choose that earn or discredit those labels. Each alignment can be the hero, each can be the villain, each one doing this though in their own way.

The beautiful part of this arrangement is it offers no real guarantees. Detect Alignment may reveal the subject's nature - but it will not disclose their intentions, disposition, or most importantly whether they are a friend or foe.  At the end of the day alignment systems with Good and Evil involved fail because of this one truth - they are a cop out for players since they provide absolute "friend or foe" detection. While the DM can harry this somewhat at the end of the day the solutions to this problem are kludges only.

To elaborate - If you detect a subject has a Silver alignment (more properly a "Sodran" alignment - silver is merely the color of their aura under the scrutiny of the spell) you know that they hold individual rights above most all other concerns. From this you know they are likely to be greedy, acquisitive and very likely to want to profit on whatever they provide to you in some manner - perhaps without even consciously intending to.  However, you don't know if they respect the law (Sodreans *tend* not to, but many are willing to because working within the law is easier and more profitable). Most importantly you don't know if they are evil - you may feel their greed and selfishness (or selfish tendencies) makes them evil from your point of view, but that's a subjective call for your character. Objectively the alignment grants you no insight into this question.


----------



## VannATLC (May 20, 2008)

I like that.

A lot.

A virtue-based alignment system. Like virtue-based ethical, kicks the crap out of this polar duality business.




> Morals define what a given society views as acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a broad sense. Ethics defines the acceptable way to do what a society allows as moral. Morals are what is allowed; ethics are the proper way to do it




*sniff*

I'm an immoral, unethical individual.

Polyamory immediately excludes me from morality, and therefore, ethicality, eh?


----------



## VannATLC (May 20, 2008)

sigh*

I hate alignment arguments.

Unless you want to come to me and tell me you are an objectivist, the whole mess is broken. If you come and tell me you ARE an objectivist, I won't play with you. 

I've always tended to utterly scrap alignment, and all spells based off it. It serves no useful purpose.

I have a vampire NPC who fosters and grows a community around him, maintains their safety in an uncertain world, hold fortnightly competitions in physcial and mental skills, then awards the winner with an invitation to a light dinner. At a certain age, the elderly are assisted in writing the memoirs, then drained of blood.

He is good for this community. There is no two ways about it. He knows things they would forget in a generation or two, otherwise. He defends them when necessary. Its a true symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without him, the community would fall within a generation.

Why should he be evil? 

I strongly like the new system, because it allows for a LOT more flexibility.

You've got a single axis, this is true. I understand the concerns that chaotic=evil and law=good.

However, most of those concerns are bunk. Chaotic things are not anarchists. They are inherently destructive. A person who has an internal code, of any sort, is NOT chaotic. They may care nothing for tradition, or laws, or social mores. But they are not chaotic. Chaotic = Insane.
I've never been able to comprehend any other meaning. As soon as somebody makes a rational decision based on their own personal beliefs (Ignoring, for the moment, the validity of those beliefs) then they are not a chaotic person.

Even then, my little rant is ultimately pointless, as chaos is only an idea that is represented by an incomplete understanding of a system. (I'll grant there is a philosophical possibility of true randominity inherent in what we understand of the truly base levels of existance. Quantum Fluctations and other similar random events.)

You can have a character, of course, who is opposed to social laws. An anarchist.

Describe them as an anarchist. Not chaotic good.


*Korgoth*

You do no have the scope of knowledge to objectively judge Good or Evil. Or even to define them.


----------



## Kordeth (May 20, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I have a vampire NPC who fosters and grows a community around him, maintains their safety in an uncertain world, hold fortnightly competitions in physcial and mental skills, then awards the winner with an invitation to a light dinner. At a certain age, the elderly are assisted in writing the memoirs, then drained of blood.
> 
> He is good for this community. There is no two ways about it. He knows things they would forget in a generation or two, otherwise. He defends them when necessary. Its a true symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without him, the community would fall within a generation.
> 
> Why should he be evil?




To be fair, what you're arguing against here isn't alignment, it's the D&D statement that vampires are "always chaotic evil." This character works just fine as a neutral or good-aligned character within the framework of the old alignment system.

Nevertheless, I agree with all of the points you make.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 20, 2008)

I imagine that the 5-note scale alignment, like evil gods, is something for players (mortals) to understand.

To a person with a limited life span, the scale of "Murdering Sociopath" to "Charitable Altruist" is far, far more important than whether or not he pays his taxes or jaywalks.

To Gods and other Immortals, who could spend decades deciding the proper methodology over one specific point of order, the Chaos-Law spectrum is considerably more important.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 20, 2008)

Bah.  I'm not finding anything about the 4E alignments that I like.  But in fairness, I haven't seen the 4E books yet.  Maybe there is something in the context, some sort of subtleness or rationalle, that will explain it all in a way that will make me fall helplessly in love with it.

Which isn't likely, but I'll entertain the notion.

The thing is, I like the old system of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos, with Neutral covering all of the "shades of grey."  Of course the old system isn't perfect...but it is much closer than this new-fangled one.


----------



## VannATLC (May 20, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> To be fair, what you're arguing against here isn't alignment, it's the D&D statement that vampires are "always chaotic evil." This character works just fine as a neutral or good-aligned character within the framework of the old alignment system.
> 
> Nevertheless, I agree with all of the points you make.




Hmm, you're right, that is what it sounds like.

The important part is, this guy is still a vampire that drinks blood and arranges to have people killed for his benefit. 

Under most sorts of mortal-time framed Good/Evil axis' this would qualify as Evil, would it not?

I mean, I personally would be very swingy. His net effect appears to be positive. His methods are questionable. He could, presumable, do all of this and feed off savage humanoids, or animals, instead, which would, in my book, make him much more 'Good'.

*shrug*. Its mostly a personal beef with the poor nature to good and evil.


----------



## Andor (May 20, 2008)

I think we could avoid all this argument be using a clear and intuitive alignment track that uses easily understood terms to show the characters... um... character. For example:

Scientologist - Vegan - Hippie - New Yorker - Redneck - Rush Limbaugh - Walmart


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 20, 2008)

Hmm... I probably be a New Yorker... Well... New York nowadays or like 60-80's New York? I'd be nowadays.


----------



## Tervin (May 20, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'll give an example for why I think it matters.
> 
> One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.
> 
> ...




Your point is valid in a 3.x context. Not in a 4 context, where they have claimed that alignment doesn't have technical application like that. I was talking about alignments in 4th edition

By the way, I don't really support the 9 alignments. My own take on alignments is that they are useful as story and world building tools, but that Good, Lawful, Unaligned, Chaotic and Evil would probably be enough. 

PCs don't really need alignment though, and for many players I think they are in the way of building an interesting character.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 20, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> Your point is valid in a 3.x context. Not in a 4 context, where they have claimed that alignment doesn't have technical application like that. I was talking about alignments in 4th edition




OK, fair enough


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 20, 2008)

Incidentally, under by "interpretation", I wouldn't be surprised to see Devils classified as 'evil' while demons are classified as 'Chaotic evil' because the former want to control everything but the latter just want to destroy.

I'm not suggesting that is the real actual way things will turn out mind, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it does. 

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 20, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Incidentally, under by "interpretation", I wouldn't be surprised to see Devils classified as 'evil' while demons are classified as 'Chaotic evil' because the former want to control everything but the latter just want to destroy.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that is the real actual way things will turn out mind, just that I wouldn't be surprised if it does.
> 
> Cheers



I think that's how it will turn out.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 20, 2008)

I know it's old hat to the point of cliche to make this argument...but here it goes. "We need to wait until the books are out before making a judgement."  I dont think a single version of DnD has EVER kept the EXACT same alignments.  Sure, they may have kept the actual labels, but the meaning behind the labels have often shifted.  We dont know how the new version of alignment is divided, so any argument based on previous versions is a bit premature.


----------



## Clavis (May 20, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I like that.
> 
> A lot.
> 
> ...




By the standards of the larger society, yes. But you can still be both Moral and Ethical by Poly standards. For instance, it is moral in a Poly community to take other lovers. It is unethical, however, to ask your lovers to choose between yourself and another lover, or deceive lovers about your lifestyle or intentions.


----------



## TheWyrd (May 20, 2008)

So far all of the Devils we have seen had 'Evil' in their stat block.


----------



## Clavis (May 20, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Hmm... I probably be a New Yorker... Well... New York nowadays or like 60-80's New York? I'd be nowadays.




You say that like it's a good thing.

Sure, nobody misses the crime.

People _do _miss the artists, the rents you could sometimes actually pay, the authentic culture, people with actual new ideas, and a city that wasn't completely based around the desires of the ultra-rich and yuppy transplants from the mid-west.

Oh, and when the pizza, pretzels, and hot dogs were still good in Manhattan.

To keep on the alignment point, people miss the City when it was _Chaotic_.


----------



## La Bete (May 20, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> The only facts you have are that Lawful Good and Good exist.
> 
> You also have a playtester/freelancer winking and nudging at my ideas saying that something that at least shows the idea of the way alginments have shifted and my ideas are nothing like your understanding.
> 
> ...




Charwoman Gene speaks much wisdom. Well, this time at least. If CE follows on from the hints we've got (cosmology, etc), it should actually be very cool. I'm very curious now to see what LG will be  - I'm unconvinced that the description above is completely correct.


----------



## Mercule (May 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think that's how it will turn out.



As do I.  The "Chaotic Evil" bit doesn't really bother me so much because one meaning (the original?) is, basically, a universal void -- Chaos is that which came before creation.  If that don't fit demons (at least how I've always used them) I don't know what does.  I can agree that such a focus is both Evil and... something else.  That something else may as well have "Chaotic" as an adjective.

I'm less sanguine about the use of "Law" as an appendix to "Good", though.  Whose law?  Is it still expressly the opposite of Chaos?  If so, in what way?  Surely not just "creation is good", otherwise, we're looking at a Werewolf-type Weaver, which wasn't Good.  Obedience to the creator(s)?  That fits fine into my Christian perspective, but D&D is polytheistic with explicitly fallible deities.  Or is it simply to Order, in general -- in which case, I submit they have placed an arguable Evil as a designated Good.

Of course, none of our concerns may be valid.  We don't know, though, because WotC decided to make a point of telling us what the new alignment system is without giving any real info.  Bullet points on a long-standing source of flame wars was probably not the greatest PR idea.  Then again, we're still talking about 4e.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 20, 2008)

La Bete said:
			
		

> I'm unconvinced that the description above is completely correct.




So am I.


----------



## lutecius (May 20, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Try this one.  There are two poles of Cosmic Philosophy, good and evil.  "Alignment" means you have taken an interest in devoting yourself to acheiving the goals of that pole.  The are two Sub Categories.  "Lawful" Good is a subcategory for people who are good, but tie themselves to a defined code.  "Chaotic" Evil is the subcategory of Evil that are beyond selfishnes and into raw destruction.
> 
> Order and Chaos are awesome for use as cosmic poles, but only in a relativistic G/E framework.  Good and Evil at the same time higlight the alieness of these poles and ruin their applicability.



I completely agree about order and chaos not working in terms of personal alignment (nobody rebels against or supports order per se, you always rebel against or support a particular law/regime you either like or dislike.)

But the thing is, your definition of LG is pretty much the same as 3e's.
What makes "good people who attach themselves to a defined code" more different from "just good people" 
than "evil people who attach themselves to a defined code" are from "just bad people"
If anything, a villain attached to a defined code is more distinct in play, because no matter how evil he is, you can expect him to stay true to whatever twisted code of honor he has, whereas NE and CE are equally untrustworthy.
This is a flaw in C.Sims arguments (in the evil gods thread) too, but I don’t know if this is the official word.

I am not saying they should keep the old aligments. Just that if LE can be folded into Evil, or if LN and CN can be lumped together into Unaligned, I don’t think LG and CE can be different enough to make the cut unless they mean something radically different from what they meant in previous editions.


----------



## Family (May 20, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I can agree that such a focus is both Evil and... something else.  That something else may as well have "Chaotic" as an adjective.
> 
> I'm less sanguine about the use of "Law" as an appendix to "Good", though.




ZOE- You've never heard of Reavers? 
... 
SIMON- What happens if they board us? 
ZOE- If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing... and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.







Zoe: "Sanguine". Hopeful. Plus, point of interest: it also means "bloody". 
Mal: Well, that pretty much covers all the options, don't it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2008)

> Robust? What system did you have in mind? Because all the Paladin and Alignment debates have shown me that the 3E alignment is anything but robust.




I _do_ mean the old, tried and true 9 point Alignment system.  It has enough shades of morality and ethics to handle a wide variety of worldviews- more than 5, anyway.  The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law...and that definitely doesn't conform to _reality_, much less fiction.

And Paladins?

Paladin threads are merely an example of people struggling with a distinction that has plagued RW humanity since the dawn of philosophy & religion- the nature of good- coupled with a class with some clunky mechanics.  After all, Paladins detect evil as per the spell, meaning it takes _time_ to use.  How often do you see Paladins actually standing up in battle distinguishing between those who truly believe in the evil they serve, those who are just in it for the money, and those who are serving evil out of duress?

Generally speaking, you have people who assert that Paladins follow "Good, not Gods" whereas others let their Paladins follow "Good through Gods"- IOW, the Paladin follows the dictates of Law and Good through the prism of a particular divine entity or ethos.  Furthermore, some assert that a Paladin need not show mercy to evil, while others counter that mercy is the Paladin's paramount virtue.

The problem with the first position is that in all of human history, no philosophy or religion has been able to define "Good" in such a way as to exclude all acts that we would find distasteful when put into RW action.

The problem with the second is that Gods have agendas and can be just as judgemental as the beings that worship them.

True, mercy is one of the highest virtues there is- it is at its foundation a recognition that anyone may change from the path of evil, given time and the right circumstances.  But in a game where there are probable corporeal interactions between mortals and beings for whom their alignment is integral to their nature- demons, devils, angels, etc.- the question of mercy is far more complex than in the RW.  Even absent consideration of supernatural beings, the ability for even mortals to change alignment- specifically in the case of humanoid opponents like Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc.- is a _campaign-specific_ question.  IOW, the need for Paladins to show mercy is 1) highly situational and 2) campaign dependent.


----------



## Lackhand (May 20, 2008)

Tangential musing: If I had to come up with a new alignment system, I don't think I'd pick a 5 bucket system.
I'd pick the same two poles that they did -- Good versus Evil as the default for the game, because you need holy powers and an alignment for Team Cartoonishly Evil (Undead, Devils, and so on).

But for Lawful and Chaotic? I think I'd make the other term an unfixed personality descriptor.
Lawful for Good versus Dominating for Evil; Independent for Good versus Chaotic for Evil; that kind of thing. The rules are that they don't need to match up, and that they should avoid having opposite connotations to their use.
Chaotic is _never a good word_. If you think that it is, it's because you're contrasting it with stagnant (which is even worse) or D&D has infected your vocabulary. Independent is _usually_ a good word. I'd rather be Indep Good than CG, any day.
Lawful is more (heh) neutral, but I think on the whole it connotes "just" and "good" enough that it can stay.

Yes, it's an infinite number of alignments, but if you treat them like Real Descriptors (damage types, bonus types...) it's not that bad. Besides, most of the rules center on the struggle of Good v Evil; the descriptors then become role playing aids that are _far_ more helpful than just Lawful versus Chaotic, which end up not being that helpful anyway.


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

How could you people let this thread slide to page 3?
It's so much better than the other alignment threads! it pwns "miss cg" and "evil gods" any day!!



			
				lutecius said:
			
		

> ...
> But the thing is, your definition of LG is pretty much the same as 3e's.
> What makes "good people who attach themselves to a defined code" more different from "just good people"
> than "evil people who attach themselves to a defined code" are from "just bad people"
> ...



...and apparently they don't. So all our points were valid. Weaksauce :\ 
I know alignment is just fluff now, I just hope they haven't spent too much time or paid anyone too much to come up with this.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I _do_ mean the old, tried and true 9 point Alignment system.  It has enough shades of morality and ethics to handle a wide variety of worldviews- more than 5, anyway.  The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law...and that definitely doesn't conform to _reality_, much less fiction.




WHY DOES NOONE LISTEN TO ME??/!



> Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE. You can just as easily read the new system as saying LG is a dilution of G, as an intensification of it. In fact, you can also say that LG sits alongside G and is neither better nor worse, just different. It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2008)

> It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.




Not me.

The new system- linear or not- that has LG and CE rating their own designation while other gradations of G&E are simply lumped together in an undifferentiated mass is * weak*.

I would have been happier with a 3 point G-U-E system (with PC's methods to achieving their ends being undefined by Law or Chaos) than this hybrid mess.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not me.




Ahem.

The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law​


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I would have been happier with a 3 point G-U-E system (with PC's methods to achieving their ends being undefined by Law or Chaos) than this hybrid mess.



This.The alignment naming conventions in 4E just don't make sense to me. Chaotic 







			
				chambers said:
			
		

> Chaos: noun. 1 the formless shape of matter that is alleged to have existed before the Universe was given order. 2 complete confusion or disorder. 3 physics <snip, does not apply>



 So yes elemental chaos is fine but #2 shows that chaos as a name should not be used for something that is, for example, meticulous (i.e. Archons). CE is not a good alignment name for the description given (although I have only got it 2nd hand- unlike Morrus!), if they slaughtered the 9 grid cow, why didn't they slaughter the naming conventions or just have the three?


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> This.The alignment naming conventions in 4E just don't make sense to me. Chaotic  So yes elemental chaos is fine but #2 shows that chaos as a name should not be used for something that is, for example, meticulous (i.e. Archons). CE is not a good alignment name for the description given (although I have only got it 2nd hand- unlike Morrus!), if they slaughtered the 9 grid cow, why didn't they slaughter the naming conventions or just have the three?



 Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.

Think chaos space marines, not orks.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.
> 
> Think chaos space marines, not orks.



Yeah saw it on the other thread, still means naff all to me


----------



## Green Knight (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Yeah saw it on the other thread, still means naff all to me




They worship beings called 'Chaos Gods', they're called 'Chaos Space Marines', they live in a place called the Eye of Terror, in which the laws of physics are non-existent, many of them are horribly mutated by the warping energies of that place... and yet as a military force they're more disciplined than Imperial Storm Troopers (well, for the most part). They believe in 'Chaos', they live in a place which is pure chaos, but when it comes to fighting, they're one of the most efficient and disciplined forces in the galaxy.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Chaotic evil = cosmologically chaotic, not organisationally chaotic.
> 
> Think chaos space marines, not orks.




I'm not sure if that's such a good example, as 40k fluff is well known for being hilariously bad and so over the top in it's GRIMDARK that it makes you laugh.  I'm not _quite_ sure that's the direction Wizards wanted to take 4e 

edit: Also, that outlook really hurts the previous argument of "4e totally doesn't claim chaos is evil!"


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 21, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They worship beings called 'Chaos Gods', they're called 'Chaos Space Marines', they live in a place called the Eye of Terror, in which the laws of physics are non-existent, many of them are horribly mutated by the warping energies of that place... and yet as a military force they're more disciplined than Imperial Storm Troopers (well, for the most part). They believe in 'Chaos', they live in a place which is pure chaos, but when it comes to fighting, they're one of the most efficient and disciplined forces in the galaxy.



Thanks for explaining. Man, I LOL'd. About what I would expect from something with 'space' orcs, sorry orks.


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if that's such a good example, as 40k fluff is well known for being hilariously bad and so over the top in it's GRIMDARK that it makes you laugh.  I'm not _quite_ sure that's the direction Wizards wanted to take 4e
> 
> edit: Also, that outlook really hurts the previous argument of "4e totally doesn't claim chaos is evil!"




Regardless of the quality of 40K fluff, it is still a perfect example.

Ummm.. I'm not sure where I've seen anywhere that it doesn't claim Chaos is, at least, mindlessly destructive. When you give it intellect, it can have morality. Then it becomes evil.

4e chaos, without exception so far, is not a political or moral statement. It is raw destruction.


----------



## Hambot (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm not _quite_ sure that's the direction Wizards wanted to take 4e





Designer 1:

"In the grim darkness of the past there was only dragons... who lived in dungeons... but who stole from non-dragons, so disregard the word "only" mentioned previously, 

ah screw it start over."

Designer 2:

"You know what would make gnomes cool!  They can turn invisible - that way we wont have to commission art for them, so people wont have big arguments about what they should all look like any more, and whether or not they feel like they fit in!"

Designer 1:

"I like it.  Now where was I.  In the grim darkness of the dungeon the only light is the end of a dragons mouth..."

Designer 2:

"what, like at the end of a tunnel?"

Designer 1:

"To hell with it.  Lets just paint a picture of a dragon sitting in a dungeon with some treasure.  It's worked before, it'll work again."


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Thanks for explaining. Man, I LOL'd. About what I would expect from something with 'space' orcs, sorry orks.





You missed the bit where Orks are plants, as well as being genetically programmed with instinctive knowledge for war techology, and originally created to be warriors for a supreme master race.

The 40K fluff isn't, IMO, particular bad. A lot of the crap surrounding the Human empires is.. very forced, because it is very, very difficult to describe the Imperium as anything other than tyrannical, deeply evil, and, unfortunately, possibly correct in its actions. But that doesn't really sell product.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> You missed the bit where Orks are plants, as well as being genetically programmed with instinctive knowledge for war techology, and originally created to be warriors for a supreme master race.
> 
> The 40K fluff isn't, IMO, particular bad. A lot of the crap surrounding the Human empires is.. very forced, because it is very, very difficult to describe the Imperium as anything other than tyrannical, deeply evil, and, unfortunately, possibly correct in its actions. But that doesn't really sell product.




It's not that the fluff is _bad_ bad, but it's B movie bad.  It's _awesomely_ bad.  It's bad because it doesn't take itself seriously at _all_, and that's what makes 40k so much fun.

Except Eldar.

Screw Eldar.

On that note, could the Imperium be proof of Lawful Evil?*

*No, it's not, HERETIC.  *BLAM*


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Regardless of the quality of 40K fluff, it is still a perfect example.
> 
> Ummm.. I'm not sure where I've seen anywhere that it doesn't claim Chaos is, at least, mindlessly destructive. When you give it intellect, it can have morality. Then it becomes evil.
> 
> 4e chaos, without exception so far, is not a political or moral statement. It is raw destruction.




Well, that last bit is what I'm getting at.  There were quite a few arguments in these here parts over how some people felt Wizards was implying that chaos was inherently evil, and quite a few people said "No way, they're not saying chaos is evil at all!"

I'm glad it's summer, because some fried eggs sound good right now 

...That joke was horrible.  I was hinting at the whole "egg on their face" thing, for the, er, everyone that will inevitably not get it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 21, 2008)

In my eyes it is a corrupted Lawful Good, it sees itself as doing good and it very strictly believes in order and a maintained society. But, it is rotten to the core in its methods and actions.


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

I have a confession.

I forcibly stopped my self describing them as lawful evil >.>

Mostly because they are evil in the short-term, and fundamentally good in the long term.

Which makes it a liberalist/conservatist issue.. >.>

Wanna be free but Warp-food? Or want to preserve the human race?


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, that last bit is what I'm getting at.  There were quite a few arguments in these here parts over how some people felt Wizards was implying that chaos was inherently evil, and quite a few people said "No way, they're not saying chaos is evil at all!"




Destruction != evil


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> I have a confession.
> 
> I forcibly stopped my self describing them as lawful evil >.>
> 
> ...




Well, to be fair, in Warhammer, Chaos really IS evil, so "lawful evil" can't really exist, since law inorexably IS good.


----------



## Sojorn (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Destruction != evil



Oh, come on, next you'll be saying that you can't be dedicated to the ideals of good AND destruction at the same time.

Oh, hey, wait a tic... >_>


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

Discipline, at least, is required, since the destabilisation of the Immaterium. W40K makes no attempt at calling an objective Good or Evil, and I think thats a core part of the philosophy. The Imperium *is* Evil, in the eyes of many, many people, and Good in the eyes of other.

I mean, nothing is more lawful than the Tyranids, or the Necrons.. and they are anything but Good.

In fact, within a kind of oppostional scale, the Necrons are the Polar opposites of Chaos. Unchanging Order in the face of permenant Chaos.

(I used to work for GW, and can go on.. and on.. and on.. about the Lore.. but this isn't really the place.) Some of the philosophies enshrined are quite excellent, and much of the political commentary that some of the writers disguise as race lore is great


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, in Warhammer, Chaos really IS evil, so "lawful evil" can't really exist, since law inorexably IS good.



No. In WH, law and chaos are both evil i.e. extremes are evil and good lies somewhere in the middle (well, maybe a little closer to law) if it exists at all. The empire is definitely not good. And i think those star eating borg things are definitely LE.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2008)

> > > It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.
> >
> >
> >
> ...




Hong, brevity may be the soul of wit, but I'm trying to pack for a road trip to Austin and I'm not quite getting what you're saying to me.

Are you agreeing with or criticizing me?

Just to clarify my position:

1) I think the old 9 point alignment system is the best alignment system out there right now.

2) I think a 3 point G-U-E system would be better than 4Ed's proposed 5 point system.

3) I'm not making any judgement as to whether LG is the best kind of good or not, just that if you're going to break out special nomenclature for one kind of good (and likewise for evil), then other reference points need to be identified as well.  You can't cover everything perfectly, but you'll have a better overall framework within which to operate.

To analogize, the 9 point system is like the famous nutrition pyramid, distinguishing between Meats, Dairy, Grains, Fruits, Vegetables etc. with examples. Its not perfect, it doesn't have every detail about nutrition that matters, but its a handy tool.

A simpler 3 point nutrition system would distinguish between Drink, Food and Inedibles- less detailed than the 9 point system, but its streamlined in such a way that it is quick and easy to learn, and therefore also quite useful.

In contrast, a 5 point nutrition system distinguishes between Drink, Food, Inedibles, Dairy and Veggies.  It just begs questions right out of the gate...like why do Dairy and Veggies get special attention?  Did they somehow deserve it?  And why don't Meats rate their own special designation?  Why not Meats and Grains instead of Dairy and Veggies.

IOW, the 4Ed 5 point system is not as helpful as it could be. It is a step back from the previous regime in terms of usefulness. The details it adds to a potentially simpler system simply make it look like someone strapped rockets to a parrot.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Well, really, I think the morality of 40k is "Everything sucks because it is GRIM and DARK," but the ideal of the Imperium really is "Order is best.  Law is best.  Lawfulness is best.  His Most Holy Emperor is better then all these combined, but that's because he IS all these combined."

After all...

BY THE EMPEROR
Thou shalt attend to thy work at the appointed hour
Thou shalt seek no reward but the satisfaction of thy Master
Thou shalt know thy Duties
Thou shalt Obey thy Master in all matters
Thou shalt rejoice in thy Service
Thou shalt be grateful of thy Master's Favour
Thou shalt not make improper use of thy Master's comm-links, nor his las-lines, nor his opticon either
Thou shalt be glad of thy Master's punishment, for it is deserved, and it improves thee
Thou shalt not speak but Praise of thy Master
Thou shalt not look upon the words of the Heretic nor speak of them


Or, to simplify;

"A moment of laxity spawns a lifetime of heresy"


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Hong, brevity may be the soul of wit, but I'm trying to pack for a road trip to Austin and I'm not quite getting what you're saying to me.
> 
> Are you agreeing with or criticizing me?




I am taking issue with your statement

The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law​
You can read the 4E system as saying that Lawful Good is a better, purer type of good than Good. You can also read it as saying that Lawful Good is a worse, more compromised type of good than Good. You can also read it as saying that Good people are chaotic by default, so there is no reason to give it a longer label; while Lawful Good is a special type of Good that is neither better nor worse, just different.

Furthermore, you can represent just as many practical viewpoints within the 4E system as before. You will not be able to represent characters who are supposed to be exemplars of a cosmological type of chaos (or law), but very few characters IME are like that. In practice, a chaotic alignment far more often correlates to chaos on a personal or political level, ie the kind of personality who is unrestrained or values personal freedom. You much more often have Tasslehoff Burrfoot than Elric. And Tas falls easily into the unaligned bucket, or G/E depending on how you view him. Heck, you could even view Elric himself as unaligned, even if those he serves are C/L.

And this makes sense. With things in 3E like chaotic spells and weapons, which have actual effects based on alignment, having them trigger off someone's personality simply trivialised the C/L axis. Better to cut down that axis, while at the same time acknowledging that some types of C/L characters -- (old-style) paladins, angels and demons -- are qualitatively different to most other Good or Evil characters, AND present in large enough numbers that they deserve special treatment.



> 3) I'm not making any judgement as to whether LG is the best kind of good or not, just that if you're going to break out special nomenclature for one kind of good (and likewise for evil), then other reference points need to be identified as well.




Why?


----------



## lutecius (May 21, 2008)

> And i think those star eating borg things are definitely LE.



the Necrontyr


----------



## eyebeams (May 21, 2008)

The idea that ambiguity is a problem, is a problem.

Leaving aside the fact that there's something basically noxious, naive and stupid about making law-abiding behavior part and parcel of metaphysical goodness (seriously, leaving it aside -- who knows what LG is supposed to mean now?), several posters have demonstrated that it was possible to use the ninefold system just fine. The fact that every D&D player in the world would not agree on what CN, LN or whatever meant is irrelevant, though having a common opinion as a design goal perhaps speaks to a lack of confidence in D&D players ability to do face to face gaming. It really does seem like a bone to throw at DI subscribers.

Alignments were interesting because they worked on multiple levels: metaphysical (swords and planes of chaos), moral (freedom fighter versus good cop), religious (see Tweet's amazing exploration of alignments in his game) and more. These alignments read like clubhouse codes and tools to paint targets on people's heads. They seem to assume that the player base is stupid, or perhaps are intended as a Games Workshop-like firing of the fans to get some younger consumers breathing room away from spendthrift beardies. It's a terrible idea that even its defenders can only argue is just as good for some people. That's weak sauce.

Fact is, just as good for some, but not others, balances out to "bad."


----------



## VannATLC (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Well, really, I think the morality of 40k is "Everything sucks because it is GRIM and DARK," but the ideal of the Imperium really is "Order is best.  Law is best.  Lawfulness is best.  His Most Holy Emperor is better then all these combined, but that's because he IS all these combined."
> 
> Or, to simplify;
> 
> "A moment of laxity spawns a lifetime of heresy"




To be fair, the Emperor is truly Good, as far as I'm willing to determine it.

The last 10 thousand years of war are due to the Ecclesiarchy being turds.. not actually the Emperor's fault.


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

*Epiphany? *

Well, from what I read it seems this is the basis of the five alignments, now that I have seenseveral sources and had a bit of time to think:

LG: Friend that you can trust to have your back
G: Friend
U: Stranger who can be friend or enemy, depending on what you pay the DM
E: Enemy
CE: Enemy that you can't get out of fighting

Very easy to play. Perhaps not very imaginative, but still...


----------



## Family (May 21, 2008)

By jove that's brilliant, and succinct.

/I'm also plugging the idea that alignment is for NPCs, motivations are for PCs.


----------



## Wormwood (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> LG: Friend that you can trust to have your back
> G: Friend
> U: Stranger who can be friend or enemy, depending on what you pay the DM
> E: Enemy
> CE: Enemy that you can't get out of fighting



Brilliant.


> Very easy to play. Perhaps not very imaginative, but still...



1. It's imaginative.
2. More importantly, it's freakin' useful. 
3. It was worth wading through 16+ pages of alignment wankery just to read your post.


----------



## Mercule (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> Well, from what I read it seems this is the basis of the five alignments, now that I have seenseveral sources and had a bit of time to think:
> 
> LG: Friend that you can trust to have your back
> G: Friend
> ...



Are you sure it isn't:

G: Friend that you can trust to have your back.
LG: Friend who may value order more than your back.
U: Maybe friend, maybe enemy, depending on how you treat them.
E: Enemy that will screw you over even if you don't fight them.
CE: Enemy that likes a straight-up fight.


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Brilliant.
> 1. It's imaginative.
> 2. More importantly, it's freakin' useful.
> 3. It was worth wading through 16+ pages of alignment wankery just to read your post.




LOL. Thanks, I guess.

Thing is, I was being sarcastic. Cause if that is what it is, I think it is crap.

I do agree that it can be useful for casual gamers and new DMs, but it also means that us who sometimes want to be complicated weirdos need to go through every monster and NPC and redo the alignment to a code we can actually use. Which, seriously, is probably what I am going to do. Luckily I don't actually hate work like that.


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Are you sure it isn't:
> 
> G: Friend that you can trust to have your back.
> LG: Friend who may value order more than your back.
> ...




Stop that!

Now we are getting ambiguous already - and this whole system was made to get out of that.

(Or seriously, I guess your system is probably more in tune with the rules.)


----------



## Wormwood (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> Thing is, I was being sarcastic. Cause if that is what it is, I think it is crap.



Oh that's totally cool.

I've always thought that authorial intent is irrelevent when examining their work.


----------



## Mort_Q (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> *LG:*  Friend that you can trust to have your back
> *G:*  Friend
> *U:*  Stranger who can be friend or enemy, depending on what you pay the DM
> *E:*  Enemy
> *CE:*  Enemy that you can't get out of fighting




This will go well right next to nute's principals of cake-based timing .

Thanks.


----------



## Mercule (May 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In contrast, a 5 point nutrition system distinguishes between Drink, Food, Inedibles, Dairy and Veggies.  It just begs questions right out of the gate...like why do Dairy and Veggies get special attention?  Did they somehow deserve it?  And why don't Meats rate their own special designation?  Why not Meats and Grains instead of Dairy and Veggies.



This.

Is "Good" Chaotic Good, Neutral Good or both under one umbrella.  I expect the official answer is "both".  One of the staffers posed the question whether anyone could tell a difference between CG and NG.  Um... at least as much as between LG and NG.  Sure, CG may have to shy away from pure, unadulterated freedom to avoid unintended harm from people who would only use their freedom for ill, but LG would have as much restriction on enforcing order, lest people become dull-witted and unthinking.  Sure, it's a ludicrously extreme argument, but no more so than the one that could be applied to CG.

As I've said before, I kinda dig that they went with CE being the elemental sort of chaos and the destruction of everything.  So far, though, the information about splitting Good makes absolutely no sense.  Why do those seeking Good through Order deserve a breakout while those seeking Good through Freedom or Good through Balance don't?  What's so bloody special about them?

In typing this, though, I have thought of one way in which this could all work out.  We essentially have two types of evil that differ by virtue of one kind (Evil) recognizing that the multiverse is where they keep their stuff, so it might be inconvenient to end it.  If we define the difference between the two kinds of good based on what kind of evil they find most threatening, it makes some sense.  Both recognize that any evil is bad (gosh, that sounds dumb), but LG looks at Evil and says, "Well, at least the universe will continue to exist if they win.  It'd suck, but we could recover, eventually."  Meanwhile, Good says, "CE has such a huge task, they're unlikely to ever actually win, or we'll get notice.  Let's concentrate on making the universe a better place.  We might actually make some headway, there."

So, a functional definition of the alignments that I actually like:

CE: The universe sucks and violates our sensibilities.  It needs to be destroyed.  We'll figure out what happens later, later.

Evil: I kinda like being here.  In fact, I like it so much, I want to own it all.

LG: There are some beings crazy enough to nuke us all.  Why don't we do something about it?  Yeah, yeah.  Freedom, liberty, prosperity, happiness.  Those are nice and we support them, but they really don't mean squat if you ain't here to enjoy them.

Good: We have to ensure that what we're fighting to protect remains something worth protecting.  Let us know when you find that cache of weapons of mass destruction.  Until then, we're going to work on the economy and civil rights.

Unaligned: You say there's a trans-planar, philosophic war for our survival and free will, huh?  Have fun with that.  Myself, I think I'm going to go out and loot some dead guys (or loot some orcs I make dead).  But, while you're up, I think Bob the smith cheated me on the horse shoes he sold me.  Could you look into that, oh moral compass?

If *that* is the new alignment system in a nutshell, sign me up.  I likee.  If they just couldn't tell the difference between NG and CG or LE and NE, so they axed 'em, well... I'm unimpressed (and not saying anything else, since I couldn't say anything nice -- or even not mean).


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Oh that's totally cool.
> 
> I've always thought that authorial intent is irrelevent when examining their work.




Off Topic: And that I totally agree with. When I taught high school literature courses that used to confuse students (and some colleagues) to no end.


----------



## Family (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> Off Topic: And that I totally agree with. When I taught high school literature courses that used to confuse students (and some colleagues) to no end.




So what I'm getting out of this reply is that you deeply care about authorial intent. If you get my meaning


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> So what I'm getting out of this reply is that you deeply care about authorial intent. If you get my meaning




Exactly!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 21, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> Well, from what I read it seems this is the basis of the five alignments, now that I have seenseveral sources and had a bit of time to think:
> 
> LG: Friend that you can trust to have your back
> G: Friend
> ...




The old alignment system could've been just as easily simplified 

Good: Nice
Evil: Jerk
Law: Plays by the rules
Chaos: Doesn't play by the rules.


----------



## Tervin (May 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The old alignment system could've been just as easily simplified
> 
> Good: Nice
> Evil: Jerk
> ...




True. But the point of my sarky suggestion was that it was all from a good hero's perspective and all basically about who you will fight and who will help you. 

In other words dumbed down to basically be a game about fighting.


----------



## keterys (May 21, 2008)

I said it elsewhere, so may as well say it here:

I suspect they only kept the difference so you could distinguish:
'Evil for no redeeming reason' and 'Good confined by rules' from the rest.

and

'On a plus note, since alignment doesn't actually affect anything, how the alignment works is sorta like the color of garnish on your plate. Maybe it makes it look better or not, but it doesn't actually change how you enjoy the meal.'

I otherwise reiterate Hong's second law. Carry on


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.



I was taught moral philosophy by lecturers who denied the distinction, so my grasp of it is a little shaky. But what I gather from one of my colleagues is that "morality" is generally used to describe the rules that ought to govern one's behaviour insofar as it affects others, whereas "ethics" is used to describe the rules that ought to govern one's behaviour if one is to lead an examplary life (which most people would regard as including the rules of morality as a subset).

The notion that G/E is morality and L/C is ethics was introduced into D&D by Unearthed Arcana 1st edition (as far as I know) and this is a usage that bears no connection to the technical philosophical usage I have tried to sketch above.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 27, 2008)

> I am taking issue with your statement
> 
> The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law




OK, with that understanding, we can proceed!



> You can read the 4E system as saying that Lawful Good is a better, purer type of good than Good.



Which I stated I don't.


> You can also read it as saying that Lawful Good is a worse, more compromised type of good than Good.




Which I don't.  Its different, not better or worse.



> You can also read it as saying that Good people are chaotic by default, so there is no reason to give it a longer label; while Lawful Good is a special type of Good that is neither better nor worse, just different.




1) ...meaning that you have several ways of interpreting the ethical landscape of the 5 point system of 4Ed, which isn't nearly as useful as an undistinguished 3 point or a more delineated 9 point system.

2) I don't believe that people are fundamentally chaotic- especially the good ones.

Which brings up

3) If indeed people _are_ fundamentally chaotic, then the 4Ed system should be LG-G-U-E-*LE.*



> Furthermore, you can represent just as many practical viewpoints within the 4E system as before.




and



> You will not be able to represent characters who are supposed to be exemplars of a cosmological type of chaos (or law),




And that, IMHO, is a serious flaw, which is also at odds with your sentence immediately precedent (in the seperate quote).



> With things in 3E like chaotic spells and weapons, which have actual effects based on alignment, having them trigger off someone's personality simply trivialised the C/L axis.




To you, perhaps.  To me, it meant that alignment mattered _a lot._



> Better to cut down that axis, while at the same time acknowledging that some types of C/L characters -- (old-style) paladins, angels and demons -- are qualitatively different to most other Good or Evil characters, AND present in large enough numbers that they deserve special treatment.




IME, LG and CE are no less numerous or qualitatively different than beings on other axes of the alignment tree- LE and CE characters show up in games and fiction in numbers and characterizational contrast as much as the 4Ed alingments still enshrined.

If you want to talk _rarity,_ the neutral or unaligned person is probably rarest of all.

Quote:


> > 3) I'm not making any judgement as to whether LG is the best kind of good or not, just that if you're going to break out special nomenclature for one kind of good (and likewise for evil), then other reference points need to be identified as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1) To do otherwise is utterly arbitrary in a way that no game with an alignment system should be...as I pointed out in my food pyramid example.

2) It linguistically diminishes the importance of other viewpoints within the system, and that inherently affects player perspectives.  Words have meaning, and meanings matter.

Proverbs 18:31 teaches: “Mavet v’hayyim b’yad halashon – Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

Meaning that if you label someone (or in 4Ed, something) one way, it becomes worth preserving, another way, it is easily discarded.  Whether one is discussing racism or psychopathy, that is one of the fundamental points of the psychology of killing humans.

Both the psychopath and the racist use epithets that diminish the humanity of "the other." It is one of the reasons why you are often advised to humanize yourself by using your name or family photos, etc. when dealing with the criminally insane- by doing this, you maintain existential parity with your would-be assailant by keeping yourself raised above the level of an object he seeks to destroy.

Here, the 4Ed system- intentionally or not- linguistically erases certain viewpoints from the game, and by doing so, minimizes the odds that those unnamed viewpoints will be represented.  Its not people getting killed, its ethical perspectives.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> Is "Good" Chaotic Good, Neutral Good or both under one umbrella.  I expect the official answer is "both".  One of the staffers posed the question whether anyone could tell a difference between CG and NG.  Um... at least as much as between LG and NG.  Sure, CG may have to shy away from pure, unadulterated freedom to avoid unintended harm from people who would only use their freedom for ill, but LG would have as much restriction on enforcing order, lest people become dull-witted and unthinking.  Sure, it's a ludicrously extreme argument, but no more so than the one that could be applied to CG.
> 
> ...




I endorse the above opinion wholeheartedly.  Well said sir.  I hope that this is the way that they went.


----------



## Afton Radav (May 27, 2008)

*Paradox*

Law is good...by whose definition?

http://www.galactanet.com/comic/view.php?strip=204


----------



## DandD (May 27, 2008)

Nobody said that in D&D Law is good. Lawful Good is Lawful Good, not Lawful, or Good, or Lawful Neutral, or anything else. Lawful Good is Lawful and Good. It's not better than simply being Good. There is no alignment for simply being Lawful for D&D 4th edition, after all.


----------



## Saben (May 27, 2008)

Personally I won't be running with the 5 alignment system. As alignment has been more or less reduced to a roleplaying thing I'll use my own system of scales similar to the original 9 but with more flexibility. In my campaign a player picks a position on 2 scales:

Destructive-Balanced-Restorative
Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic

I like the destructive-restorative scale better than the good-evil one. Good and evil are quite subjective. I do like the idea of a character being just plain "good" and indifferent about laws (as distinct from NG) so my players will be able to cherry pick the terms they want to use.

You can be indifferent, destructive, neutral destructive, chaotic balanced, balanced, neutral, chaotic restorative or any combination of the above.

Destructive in the sense I use the words isn't just about killing but also embracing human development at the expense of the natural world. Lawful destructive embraces social order, lawful restorative embraces natural order.

I like being able to look at parts of alignment in isolation. But alignment really is just another facet of personality. Devoutness/Apathetic is a part of an alignment spectrum. Scepticism/Open-mindedness.

Actually come to think of it the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator might be a good way of sorting out "alignment"...


----------



## lutecius (May 27, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Nobody said that in D&D Law is good. Lawful Good is Lawful Good, not Lawful, or Good, or Lawful Neutral, or anything else. Lawful Good is Lawful and Good. It's not better than simply being Good. There is no alignment for simply being Lawful for D&D 4th edition, after all.



That's the whole problem. It has been said over and over in this thread, but I'll try again.
The L in LG has to mean something. So having both LG and G side by side suggests that:

Either the L part is somehow related to G. So Lawful, not just LG is some kind of good, or something beyond G on the same axis, à la warhammer.

Or L means something unrelated to G, but then it should work with E too.


----------



## hong (May 27, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> That's the whole problem. It has been said over and over in this thread, but I'll try again.
> The L in LG has to mean something.




Yes. It means "a different kind of G to Good".


----------



## lutecius (May 27, 2008)

Saben said:
			
		

> I like being able to look at parts of alignment in isolation. But alignment really is just another facet of personality. Devoutness/Apathetic is a part of an alignment spectrum. Scepticism/Open-mindedness.
> 
> Actually come to think of it the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator might be a good way of sorting out "alignment"...



 Apparently alignment in 4e has nothing to do with personality (not necessarily a bad thing IMO). It is more of a cosmic thing. For example the new archons are described as single-minded and disciplined, but they're Chaotic Evil because they serve the Primordials.

But I'm not sure this has been sorted out completely because it doesn't with fit the scoop describing alignments pretty much as what we're familiar with and the 



Spoiler



Scion of Orcus


 in KotSF is Evil, not CE.


----------

