DDN Alignment Sidebar

[Sunseeker]

I'm down for a 3-dimensional good-evil/chaos-order/neutrality-involvement scale. It would solve everything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm down for a 3-dimensional good-evil/chaos-order/neutrality-involvement scale. It would solve everything.

Everything?

 

[Sunseeker]

Everything?

Even the price of tea in China.

 

[jsaving]

The alignment sidebar definitely needs to be more precise in detailing what 5e alignments mean. "Following one's conscience" is obviously intended to imply "doing what is right in one's own eyes even when it doesn't correspond to societal norms," but this needs to be explicitly stated so people don't think it simply means "listening to one's inner voice."

I'd also say the alignment sidebar is only partially successful in providing outlooks that shed light on what people will do in particular situations. The LN writeup clearly and helpfully conveys that LN characters will enforce laws and traditions without being swayed by either selfishness or compassion. But the CN writeup's statement that an individual will be governed by "whim" almost harkens back to the bad old days of editions past, where CNs were viewed as rolling a die and acting randomly in response any given situation. That's more of a personality disorder than an outlook, and doesn't give you any idea how such a person would actually behave.

If lawfulness and chaos are going to be part of the same alignment axis, and if lawfulness embraces laws and traditions because they provide welcome direction for all, then chaos should logically shun laws and traditions because they provide unwelcome coercion for all. Viewed in this light, the CN character would be somebody who "fights the power" no matter how well-intentioned or benevolent it may be, and values the freedom to be able to act on a whim no matter what social mores might be violated by so doing.

 

[Mattachine]

To be fair, the alignment sidebar, with the 9 alignment system, plus Unaligned, is better than nothing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'd rather they get rid of the Neutral component altogether and keep Unaligned as an option for more than just instinctual creatures. That would make five distinct alignments. The alignments aren't meant to be straightjackets anyway, so there's no need for a neutral space where someone acts good sometimes and evil other times.

Ok, I get the idea of keeping law and chaos in balance, but what kind of nitwit thinks that the good of the universe requires keeping enough evil around? What? Are we concerned that everyone else will get soft if they aren't struggling against evil? Or are we concerned that, without evil, ostensibly "good" adventurers will have to face the fact that breaking into people's homes, killing them and making off with their worldly possessions isn't actually, uh, good?

If you wipe out all evil, then who's next? Intelligent races have the propensity to fight over ideology, so the next fight would be Law vs. Chaos. Better to make sure not all the evil is wiped out so the zealous do-gooders won't turn to you next. But I still don't think that Neutral alignments are needed to maintain "the balance." A good-aligned person is more than capable of having reasons to want to keep a balance.

 

[Thac0 the Barbarian]

Plus, when you degenerate into law vs chaos a lot of culture is lost as well. Next thing you know, elves forget how to be anything but fighter-mages, language degenerates until thieves and and hobgoblins speak the same gutteral tongue, and basically we're all screwed.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I really hope there will be other options alignment including no alignment at all in core.

That's kind of what it is already, though. There are no mechanics based on alignment; it's just there as a flavor thing (which you can, of course, ignore).

 

[KidSnide]

If you wipe out all evil, then who's next? Intelligent races have the propensity to fight over ideology, so the next fight would be Law vs. Chaos. Better to make sure not all the evil is wiped out so the zealous do-gooders won't turn to you next. But I still don't think that Neutral alignments are needed to maintain "the balance." A good-aligned person is more than capable of having reasons to want to keep a balance.

A good society that wipes out evil -- that's fine. But when they turn to "who's next" then they are no longer good. "Not killing the neighbors for no reason" is a basic tenant of the good alignments.

But I agree with you regarding "the balance." Good creatures that want to impose goodness on the world for the betterment of the world and good creatures that want to let neutrals "live and let live" for the betterment of the world, both sound like reasonable interpretations of good. For that matter, I think good creatures can also take the philosophy of "don't seek out evil for destruction, until it shows that it is truly a threat" because they (wisely) doubt their own ability to correctly perceive evil.

I'd rather they get rid of the Neutral component altogether and keep Unaligned as an option for more than just instinctual creatures. That would make five distinct alignments. The alignments aren't meant to be straightjackets anyway, so there's no need for a neutral space where someone acts good sometimes and evil other times.

I don't know about that. I find the differences between Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil societies to be quite interesting and the spectrum would lose many of its interesting characteristics without a midpoint at Lawful Neutral. If we're going to have more than Good-Neutral-Evil, then I think you want the full set of 9+1 (with both Unaligned and True Neutral).

-KS

Edit: >Boggle< Look what a new edition does? I thought I had stopped participating in alignment discussions years ago...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

A good society that wipes out evil -- that's fine. But when they turn to "who's next" then they are no longer good. "Not killing the neighbors for no reason" is a basic tenant of the good alignments.

I didn't intend to infer killing other good peoples. Just trying to bend a chaotic to a lawful's will is probably a fate worse than death.

I don't know about that. I find the differences between Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil societies to be quite interesting and the spectrum would lose many of its interesting characteristics without a midpoint at Lawful Neutral. If we're going to have more than Good-Neutral-Evil, then I think you want the full set of 9+1 (with both Unaligned and True Neutral).

I think the LG-LN-LE spectrum is relatively easy to see the differences, whereas CG-CN-CE always seems to cause a huge blur, especially in the CN vs. CE area.

And I think LN being lost is worth losing CN. LN can be covered by individual attitudes of LG and LE people. A LG magister could uphold an immoral law for the greater good while fighting to change said law through the proper channels, for example.

To me, requiring a neutral zone in the alignment graph seems to indicate that a person should not act outside of their area of the graph. Good people will sometimes do bad things, and vice versa. I just don't see the need to label them Neutral.