Alignment changes ...

[Agamon]

I"m okay with Good, Evil, Law(Order), or Chaos if it is something you truely believe in and applies to you.

Not something you kinda fit in, sorta, well, not really, but I have to pick an alignment so, I guess this works...most of time. Maybe.

And it looks like that's how it's going to work. Unaligned isn't Neutral, it just applies to one of the many that aren't one of the purely Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.

 

[Stone Dog]

Please explain how active, pro-Neutrality is something a rational person would support.

Not to say this is a rational point of view, but it might go more like this...

"If Good gains the advantage, Evil will suffer! Without Evil, Good will turn on itself or stagnate! Or BOTH! That would be aweful!"

 

[Agamon]

Not to say this is a rational point of view, but it might go more like this...

"If Good gains the advantage, Evil will suffer! Without Evil, Good will turn on itself or stagnate! Or BOTH! That would be aweful!"

Isn't trying to keep the balance another way of saying keep the order? And, therefore, wouldn't someone striving to keep the balance between good and evil be Lawful by definition?

 

[Shroomy]

I thought the developers mentioned that they used the term "paladin" to describe any divine warrior regardless of alignment because they didn't want to come up with nine different names. That would seem to imply that there are still the nine classic alignments plus "unaligned."

 

[Agamon]

I thought the developers mentioned that they used the term "paladin" to describe any divine warrior regardless of alignment because they didn't want to come up with nine different names. That would seem to imply that there are still the nine classic alignments plus "unaligned."

That means you can follow more than one axis. So you can be a follower of Good and Law or just Good, or none of the above.

 

[Klaus]

You said it much more succinctly than me. Kudos!



I couldn't disagree more. I submit that you are using words (such as 'hatred') equivocally.

There is no such thing as an 'inherently Evil quality', in human beings or anything else. Evil has no positive existence of its own; it is always a distortion, a perversion, of something good. Good has no need of evil, but evil has need of good; it is a parasite.

Anything that supports virtue - such as a hatred for evil-doing - is by definition good. It becomes evil only when distorted by being directed to the wrong object - to persons rather than deeds. As for 'greed', I think you're actually using the same word for two very different things.

In D&D terms, Evil is an absolute force. In D&D terms, some things are [Evil] and some are [Good].

For intance, let's look at the Paladin's code: he must not lie. And yes, lying is wrong. But a certain degree of... sidestepping the truth... actually serves to preserve society, by preventing unnecessary stress ("yes, you do look fat in that dress... and any other, btw").

To a Neutral character, if Good totally defeats Evil, the world becomes like the society in Demolition Man. Or the reality ruled by Ned Flanders in a Simpsons Halloween Special.

 

[Stone Dog]

Isn't trying to keep the balance another way of saying keep the order? And, therefore, wouldn't someone striving to keep the balance between good and evil be Lawful by definition?

There might be a type of Lawful Neutral that would want that, but a True Neutral philosophy would probably want to foster Chaos as much as possible when Law begins to calcify and and encourage Law when Chaos degrades into savagery.

True Neutrals are weird.

 

[Raduin711]

I think in previous editions, the nine alignments were nine forces of nature that just WERE. While in a broader, Tolkienesque view this is kind of interesting (the forces of Good and Evil are at war...) and everyone is forced under one of these banners in a very real sense, (hence the old alignment languages make sense in this world view) in practice it gets annoying. Few games resemble this fantasy world where White, Black and maybe Gray are a reality, not a perspective. Yet D&D continues with this assumption.

I think a campaign setting that reinstates this sort of world view could be interesting and fun, but it doesn't need to be core.

 

[Agamon]

True Neutrals are weird.

Ludicrously so. Another reason I hate alignments.

 

[Patlin]

Please explain how active, pro-Neutrality is something a rational person would support. An active pro-Neutral would agree with the following statement.

"If Good gains the advantage, Evil will suffer! That would be awful!"

The aspect of True Neutral which might be described as Aligned: Balance as opposed to unaligned would probably support one or more of the following statements:

1) The fundamental nature of the universe is much like a pendulum. Any extreme, whether of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil is temporary, and likely to bring about its opposite in the natural order of things. These four cosmic forces do horrible damage in their efforts to achieve supremacy, and the only way to prevent this damage is to keep the pendulum from swinging... a state that can only occur if each force is balanced against the others and made to remain so.

2) Neither pure altruism nor pure selfishness is a reasonable model for behavior. Only "enlightened self interest" offers good guidance for life.

3) Neither Anarchy nor Tyranny allows for a healthy society. A good government should be effective but limited in scope -- it should pave the roads and settle disputes without telling people what to think or running their lives.

The first one is a bit mystical for my tastes, I admit, but I've seen people play it well. The other two statements are more practical, but still support balance.