Phasmus
First Post
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.
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.
I guess the answer depends on how one is willing to define "lawful" and "chaotic" for purposes of the game.
