Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
I think I would have kept silent, just to see how she reconciled everything, and whether her head would explode in the process.
Yup, when I read the alignment portion of the 4e PHB I thought "Oh, they renamed Neutral!"
D&D 5E Conflicting Alignment and Ideals
- Thread starter Gargoyle
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
IMO, they didn't just do that, though, Unaligned was an important step in the evolution of Neutral. In previous editions it was often defined in truly ridiculous ways, particularly as a sort of bizarre "balance-keeper" alignment, or actively avoiding G/E, rather than just y'know, not actively pursuing any alignment-related goals.
The effect was very noticeable on my group - at least two PCs who would have been CG or "NG for appearances sake", and who would never have picked NN because of the way it was defined or presented ("That weird Druid alignment") went with Unaligned. I think with 5E's Basic set definition of Neutral, they'll be fine, but earlier ones... not so much.
5E's alignment still has a bit of a blind-spot in it's coverage of people who are very dedicated to an ideal, notion, or whatever, but where that notion/ideal doesn't match up to an alignment, and where they'll do anything to protect it. Neutral is what they'd take, but it feels like there should be a sort of separate alignment for people who act that way.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Not quite. G/E isn't about what people think DOES happen, it's about what they think SHOULD happen.
The first statement "The Strong Prevail" is a statement of belief, but not a moral assertion. It is neutral, but small-n, not big-N. Putting "should" in it would make it very similar to the third statement, so it's distinct from the other two.
The second statement is again, a statement of belief - it's not G or E, because it's makes no moral assertion. If you changed it to including "should", it would be a Good statement. Without the should it's almost a Lawful statement, certainly a naive one.
The third, similarly to the second, but obviously "should" makes it Evil. Without the "should" it's somewhat Chaotic or perhaps Gnostic ("The world is hell") or cynical (but that word has been so cheapened I tend not to use it).
Anyway, pedantry maybe, but I think "should" makes all the difference here.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Yeah, Unaligned is very popular IME too. I kept telling my players "Don't even bother filling in that space, 'cause alignment doesn't matter in 4e!" And they kept filling in 'Unaligned' anyway. Just to be safe, I guess, or maybe the CB requires an alignment?
From a player's perspective prior to 4e, TN was what I chose if I didn't want to think about alignment. (A DM could have changed it had he saw fit, but I never had a DM who monitored alignment unless you were playing a restricted class.) And that's largely why I had the "Oh, they renamed Neutral" reaction to Unaligned.
From a DM's perspective, I stopped using the rulebook definitions many years ago -- I'm not sure I ever even used them 'properly' back in 2e -- so I'm rather ambivalent about how each new edition defines its alignments.
The "optimistic" lens would be if you believe that right makes might: Good is by its nature stronger than Evil, therefore allowing the strong to prevail will ultimately lead to victory for Good.
Please note that I am not, myself, endorsing this view of things. I think that this view of things is grossly oversimplified, unrealistic, and pretty much tailor-made to produce useful suckers for Evil. But it's an internally consistent view which people of good motives could hold.
evileeyore
Mrrrph
I was kinda hoping for a more real worldy quote. Also, not all "fantasy wars" have an Evil side. The ones in games I run specifically rarely have an Evil side.
Okay.... I've always put it to "Alignment is what people Do not what they THINK", but I can see where you're aiming. The error in my post was using "statement" instead of "act".
I disagree, but then I've also always felt that "The meek shall inherit the earth" was a false sentiment as well.
"The Strong (Should) Prevail" says nothing about the manner of prevailing or over whom they are prevailing nor what they do once they prevail. It could very easily sit before either of the following sentences, and not alter the flavor of their Alignments.
The Strong (Should) Prevail and Defend The Weak, is a Good statement.
The Strong (Should) Prevail and Crush the Weak, is an Evil statement.
This goes hand in glove witn my observation about Sun Tzu's Art of War being "clinical". I don't count his treatise as being Evil, even though it is all about how to make your forces stronger on the battelfield (and largely when and where to avoid fighting). Whereas Machiavelli's The Prince is very much about crushing your foes and the peasantry under an Iron Hand and offers many "Evil" ways to do so (I'd argue 'pragmatic' but in a D&D Alignment frame many are basically from the Evil playbook).
So, Sun Tzu goes about War in a Neutral fashion, his means and ways or not objectively aligned (we can't speak to his motivations or means of rulership as he limits himself solely to the Making of War), whereas Machiavelli's trends more strongly to Evil (he very often counsels 'Crushing the Weak').
evileeyore
Mrrrph
Yeah... I've never endorsed the "Might makes Right" philosophy either. Might Makes One In Charge... sure.
What the Mighty do after that blah blah blah.
Agreed. BBEG setting up the sucker Heroes with the "Go forth and Crush Evil under your sandaled heels!" is always the great setup for your latter punch-line...
In this case it's "right makes might," not "might makes right." The idea is that being a Good person will make you stronger and more likely to triumph in battle.
It might seem absurd to us, but in a world with paladins, there is actually some logic to it.
Or, perhaps most importantly, G/E it is about what people *do*. People can think all sorts of things - but if they never act upon the thought, they aren't particularly good or evil (or lawful or chaotic, either).
The guy who thinks some ugly things, and occasionally says some nasty things, may be a big old jerk. It isn't until he *does* an ugly thing that he risks being actually Evil. Similarly, the guy who thinks that people should stand up for each other, but when push comes to shove can't summon the courage to put himself at risk for another, talks a great game, but isn't really Good.
Celebrim
Legend
Ok, so the natural way to take that is definitely Lawful Evil.
Yes, I can see that.
You could pull it off but it would require an extraordinary role player and even then I think the situation is unstable and the character is heading for a fall. There is inherently nothing wrong with the idea of a character that believes that they are one thing when actually they are the other. Javier from 'Les Miserables' believes he is Lawful Good, and even that Lawful Good is the highest good. In fact, he's no more than Lawful Neutral and blind to his on condition, and the author is asserting through the story that law while required in some situations for good ultimately detracts from goodness (a neutral good position), notably having characters break otherwise firm moral codes when necessary obtain a higher purpose. So ultimately, even Javier's aspirations to Lawful Goodness are judged unfit by the story.
You could pull off the contradiction above only by stretching the language and pulling some sleight of hand. You could have the character be personally loyal on account of friendship to a person who everyone knows is a vicious tyrant except the loyal character. In this case, the character is loyal 'to the Law' in the sense that the law is a embodied in a person. That person however rules by capricious and cruel whims. The character is continually justifying to herself the rightness of what she is doing in terms of friendship, personal loyalty, and 'the big picture'. She legitimately believes she's obeying the tyrant out of personal love and affection (that she may or may not wrongly assume is reciprocated), and to prevent more serious evils from happening.
In fact, she's utterly blind to the fact that the real reason she's obeying is that she is a subservient sycophant who is intellectually and emotionally conditioned to obey and never really questions hard why. Additionally, she is blind to the fact that the real reason she carries out the king's vicious orders is that she enjoys it. She enjoys stomping her boot down on the weak, and she lies to herself and says they must deserve it.
Of course, at the beginning of a story she's in a moral crisis - even if she's blind to it. She can't continue down this path forever while still maintaining her innocence and sense of an independent self. At some point she's going to have to confront her flaws and subvert them, or else she's going to cease to actually have a naturally good and independent nature (even if she's not aware of the change). As the demands of the tyrant become greater on her, she's going to have to break one way or the other.
There are a couple of other ways to go with this, including pretty much the opposite of the above scenario with person living out their flaws without realizing they are doing the job badly because they don't really believe in it, but that's an example. The point is that when you put that sort of tension between what you believe in your heart, and how you actually act, it's going to be explosive and its going to have to require someone that can juggle and walk tightropes at the same time to pull it off convincingly.
I think that from the sound of it we are (finally) moving in the right direction with official alignment. Alignment alone works just fine when you work out alignment from your traits, ideals, flaws, bonds and inspirations implied by your background, or vica versa work out what it means to be a particular alignment by assigning your character flaws, ideals, bonds, and inspirations. It's just that the system never really encouraged you to do that, and as such was something you only saw at particular tables. If anything, I'm more than a little worried about having firm mechanical beliefs as flaws, and hope there is a means for trading them out as your character evolves over time.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
