DDN Alignment Sidebar

[ferratus]

There has to be True Neutral in D&D Next. Otherwise, how else would new players know why the Druid card when played in 3 dragon Ante makes the weakest flight win the pot instead of the strongest flight?

 

[triqui]

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.

A good society that wipes out what they consider evil might not be fine. They might be killing their neiighbours for a reason, and even then, that reason might be wrong.

A group of LG templars that burn witches in pyres came to mind. They really really consider witchcraft to be sinful, dangerous, and evil. But the act might be "too much" for a True Neutral (specally a true neutral witch )

EDIT: Plus, the good society can go too far even without wiping out evil. Let's suppose a group of chaotic good people, who wants to end poverty in the world. They decide they are going to distribute wealth among the poor. They take the land from the rich and wealthy, which do not need it except to further increase their greed, they take the king's crown and jewel and melt it to feed the hungry, and they make everything to be shared and committed to the Greater Good. Let's call this Good association "communists". I think some people might consider that their "good deeds" aren't really that good. For example, the owner of those lands and jewels.

 

[mlund]

whereas CG-CN-CE always seems to cause a huge blur, especially in the CN vs. CE area.

Chaotic is about applying your own standards and disregarding those of others. Good vs. Neutral vs. Evil is a matter of what those standards are. If you don't have any compunctions against hurting or killing others to get what you want you're evil. If you have some sort of standards that preclude you from murdering folks when it would sate your appetites you're probably neutral. If you feel moral obligation to make personal sacrifices to help others and oppose evil you're probably good.

The real mess comes from when Chaos becomes an excuse to apply an ego-centric definition of Good and Evil and suddenly Chaotic Evil is claiming to be Neutral or Good because they think the world is evil and killing the weak is right, just, and generally just doing them a favor.

To make the Chaotic scale of alignment work you have to have an external criteria of Good and Evil that's more codified than a Chaotic character might be willing to accept.

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.

I think the difference between Neutral and Good is that Neutral is merely Benign towards the stranger while Good is downright Benevolent. The idea that Neutral means "I don't care about Good and Evil" or "I want balance between Good and Evil" or "I don't believe in Good and Evil," is where the real problem is.

Plenty of Chaotic Evil characters don't believe in Good and Evil either. Amoral and Immoral can go hand-in-hand. Animals are Amoral without being Immoral because they lack the capacity to reason morally.

Lawful Evil characters may desire very strongly to see a balance between Good and Evil in the world. Whenever an adventurer kills a marauding Elder Red Dragon then murder a hundred orphaned children or something to "maintain the balance." They are Evil with a capital "E."

Good vs. Evil is about what you are willing to do to and for others. Neutrality is about being unwilling or unable to cross the line into a life of malicious depravity or heroic virtue. In that regard "Unaligned" from 4E is a better fit that "True Neutral." My 9-point alignment view goes something like this:

Lawful Evil --- Lawful --- Lawful Good
Evil -------- Unaligned -------- Good
Choatic Evil -- Chaotic -- Chaotic Good

If something is sworn above all else to implementing the Balance he's Lawful himself (by motive and deed) even if his code an oath of Neutrality. Why he believes in this balance and lines he's willing to cross to maintain it determined whether he's Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, or just Lawful.

When someone says, "I'd love to help" or "I hate to have to do this" and follows up with, "but 'the Balance Must Be Maintained,'" he's behaving in an Awfully Lawful fashion.

- Marty Lund

 

[Remathilis]

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.

IMHO, YMMV, and all that jazz...

Perhaps the next pass of on Alignment (and I suspect it will see another pass before the books are printed) will add a bit more to each one.

LG: You follow the rules and try to be a nice guy because its the right thing to do.
LN: You follow the rules, because they are the rules and should be obeyed, regardless of the outcome.
LE: You follow the rules, but manipulate them to get an edge over others.
NG: You try to be a nice guy and don't rock the boat too much.
N: You try to avoid any extreme and seek a middle ground between selfish and altruism, rules and freedom. You prefer to avoid getting involved.
Un: You have no moral code and act on instinct.
NE: You search for an advantage in life and are willing to do anything to get ahead. You care for little beyond your needs (and perhaps a small group of others, if any at all).
CG: You try to do good and be a nice guy, but you hate the idea of laws telling you what to do. You believe people do best with limited control from others.
CN: You live by your passion, but try not to interfere with others. You are introverted, but not selfish and prefer a "live and let live" mentality.
CE: You are a sociopath who takes pleasure in the suffering of others. You hate the laws and conventions of society, and belief others exist to be exploited.

Neutrality is basically Unaligned except as a rational creature (one guided by intellect and not instinct) you must choose to live in such a way.

 

[ferratus]

I wonder... is the phrase lex malla, lex nulla (a bad law is no law... St. Thomas Aquinas)... Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good?

 

[MoonSong]

Neutral Good, Chaotic Good doesn't even cares if there is a law on the first place and Lawful Good would try to get all the good as possible from the current law

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is pretty close to my own take on the alignments... I break it down thus:

Law = "I do what I'm supposed to do..."
Chaos = " I do what I want to do..."
Neutral = "I do what I do..."

Good = "...to ensure others are better off."
Evil = "...to ensure I am better off."
Neutral = "...regardless of who benefits."

So the Lawful Evil "motto" is (in my system) "I do what I'm supposed to do to ensure I am better off."

 

[Obryn]

If alignment can be disconnected completely from the game's mechanics, I could care less if there are five, nine, ten, sixteen, or twenty-seven of them. They could turn into allegiances to different brands of soda for all I care.

As long as I can ignore it without yanking out entire subsystems of the game and leaving broken spells, feats, and abilities in its wake, I'm happy.

Sadly, I don't think I'm going to get my wish.

-O

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

IMHO, YMMV, and all that jazz...

I agree with you (and others), it jus seems that Neutral all too often becomes an excuse for "sometimes I get to act evil." Overall, I guess I don't really mind what they do with official alignments because I'll still treat them the way I always have. But I do agree with many here that tying effects to alignment needs to stay out of the game. Spells that effect evil should only effect creatures that are pure embodiments of the alignment, like demons and devils, IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

I wonder... is the phrase lex malla, lex nulla (a bad law is no law... St. Thomas Aquinas)... Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good?

All three, depending on the actions to correct it.

a LG person works within the system to change it while obeying the letter, if not spirit, of the law.

A NG ignores the law and works to change it while appearing to work within the system.

A CG openly, brazenly defies the law while working to stop it.