Five Alignments?

[Mercule]

I never quite understood the difference between morals and ethics, to be honest.

I don't think there was ever a good definition, game-wise. No matter how you cut it, you have to fudge the definition of "ethics" a bit. Some people are going to call it "respect for society", then promptly confuse "society" with "other people" which automatically makes lawful more good.

Others are going to say that it's a context of having ordered thinking, including personal codes. That runs completely counter to some 1e text on the subject that explicitly says chaotics pretty frequently have personal codes, they are just personal, rather than based on social conventions. It also tends to push things in the direction of "lawful == sane, chaotic == insane", which is a bloody worthless and stupid core mechanic for a game that doesn't have that as a strong theme (e.g. Cthulhu, Cyberpunk).

I've always figured the ethics indicated how you processed your morals. Lawfuls tend to think in terms of societies and groups. Chaotics think of individuals and situations. Neutrals tended to see the value in each. You want your laws made by LG people because they are thinking of the stable framework that provides for the best chance of good being done as a rule. You want CG cops because they will be looking at you and the situation as it exists right now and will be focusing on what's going to be best for the people actually present, rather than the precedent being set or how their decision would work if turned into a rule. Judges are best in between because they need to look at both what's before them in the specific case and how their ruling will impact the way other pieces of the system function. Sometimes things work best other ways, but that's a general outline that worked well enough for me.

 

[Wepwawet]

...but are you loosing some interesting rp posibilities in the process?

Not really

I love that all monsters get a short description of their behaviour. To me this is infinitely better than giving one of 9 alignments that people don't even agree on what they mean. This allows me to roleplay their part better.

 

[Tervin]

To me the real issue is not what the old alignments stood for. It is not whether the new system is linear or not. it is simply - "What can we use the alignment system for?"

First of all, alignment is not at all important in character development for me. Both PCs and NPCs get their alignments as an afterthought. And, in general the label never really matters.

Still some of you might have noticed that I kind of dislike this new system. Why?

Because alignments are useful for setting up broad conflicts within a setting. It gives me as a DM a shorthand for describing groups, tribes and monsters (not every individual of them, but general trends). In the fantasy story you tend to have a conflict between A and B, and the hero/heroes choose one of the sides, fighting for it in various ways. The standard heroic story is about good fighting evil. And that is fine. It is easy to get into, and works especially well when you don't want too much philosophy an debate in the way of the action. The weakness is that the heroes don't really have a real choice in how they are going to act.

And sometimes you want to challenge the players. You want them to make a choice where right and wrong aren't obvious. The easiest way is the dark story, where both sides are evil and your heroes have to decide which is the lesser of them, or which can easiest somehow be influenced to do good instead. This sort of story is also fine, the longest campaign I ever played was one of those, and lots of fun was had there. But this story often has the problem that the characters don't really get to feel like heroes. They feel like they are forced to work for something they don't like. Too much of that, and frustration takes over.

Any other solutions? Good vs Good? I have played one campaign in the 80s that tried that as a subtheme, but then using the LG paladin civilization vs the CG "barbarians". It is doable, but best as political conflict rather than military. "Good" doesn't really want to kill "good" after all, even if they worship the wrong gods or have unacceptable laws.

Unaligned vs Unaligned? (Unaligned vs Evil works as a less powerful subset of Good vs Evil, as does Good vs Unaligned.) Well this is probably where I will have to go with future storylines myself, if I want to stick to the official rules. This works fine, you can yourself invent why the conflict is there, and the heroes can both debate which is side is really right and actually want to defend the side that they choose to work with. The heroes will often change sides in these kinds of conflicts, or work for both sides at once. Fun stuff.

The 1.0 to 3.x solution here was usually to run Law vs Chaos, which meant that you could use lots of stuff both from MMs and various fluff descriptions to help you along. Good and evil characters could show up on both sides, which could make for very colourful storylines and battles. And what stops me from doing Law vs Chaos in 4th edition? Nothing. But on the other hand, if the rules have alignments where chaotic is a subset of evil and lawful is a subset of good, then it does seem a lot harder, doesn't it?

What I think will be the loss for my way of writing in 4Ed is the lack of creative support from the game. Races, cultures, organizations and monsters will mainly be made for the Good vs Evil mindset. I can still use their creations, but I will probably need to tweak it all, at least from a fluff point of view.

If I am the only DM who feels this way, then their choice is absolutley correct. But if there is a more significant minority who like the kind of stuff that I talked about here, then they have made a mistake. After all, the options added by a Law vs Chaos element doesn't really take away anything from the Good vs Evil. Or am I just being a whiny old fart?

 

[MrGrenadine]

I've always found the alignment system to be a great shorthand for describing a character's general attitude about the universe, but I can see why some folks would play without any alignment system at all.

Part of the problem (besides folks disagreeing about the definitions of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil), is that WotC made the Chaos-Law axis a universal axis, on par with Good-Evil, (basically defining Lawful as those that want a universe of sentient beings and physical laws, and Chaotic as those who want to destroy the universe). Honestly, the addition of Protection and Detect spells of Chaos and Law supports this idea, but I never saw it that way, myself, and it was clearly not the case in earlier iterations if D&D (see the 2e alignment descriptions). Whatever--its the designer's sandbox--but now that they've made Chaos and Law universal concepts, that means the older alignment system isn't as elegant.

However, I've always seen *only* the Good-Evil axis as universal. IMC, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, with champions on both sides vying for victory over the other, and how a character acts in the universe places him or her somewhere on that axis. The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil. Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere. Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act. Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'. That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful.

Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.

So, to say you are Lawful doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road. Lawful means you abide by a set of laws. Period. Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever. The point is that you follow them.

Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc.

Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis. A character could easily and clearly be Chaotic and a champion of Good, or Lawful and a champion of Evil. (There are plenty of examples for both of these attitudes in RL and fiction, as others have pointed out).

The idea of Neutral in the old system seems to be a sticking point with some folks, because its perfectly reasonable for someone who is Neutral on either axis to be there for different reasons. For instance, the character could be truly Neutral, refusing or not caring to take sides between Good and Evil. Or perhaps he or she is Neutral on the way from one end of the axis to the other, (since alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how a character would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past, they're in a constant state of flux).

So the two crossing, but independent axes--Good-Evil and Chaos-Law--make a lot of sense to me, and open characters up to a wider variety of attitudes. Why have one descriptor--Good--for both CG and NG, if players want to make that distinction? And how can it be that everyone who obeys a set of laws does so to further the cause of Good? Characters should have the freedom to walk the thin lines between all of these forces, and change their minds as they go, just like us.

Me, I'm gonna stick with the older system, and if Protection From and Detect Good/Evil go missing from 4e, I'm going to add them back.

 

[TerraDave]

Hmm. There is a basis for the 9 point alignment system: Morality vs. Ethics.

I guess what this is saying is that you can be

G: particularly moral,
E: particularly immoral,
LG: particularly moral and ethical,
CE: particularly immoral and unethical
UA: moral and ethical some, but not all, the time.

But just being unethical, or just ethical, or ethical but immoral, or moral but unethical, are out. Of course, you can always define morality and ethics to make this true...but are you loosing some interesting rp posibilities in the process?

Lets try some examples:

Tony Stark: taking someone topical. In the movie (before capture), and many comics, under the old system he is basically LN (leaning to G). He does the right thing, maybe not the good thing. He is pretty ethical, not always moral. In the new system he is just unaligned, sometime good.

Darth Vader: classic LE. He is restoring peace to the galaxy, one destroyed planet at a time. He has ethics, as far as he is concerned he is ethics. Not so moral. New system, juts evil.

Captain Jack Sparrow: old system, somewhere between chaotic to chaotic good. He is not bound by conventions, or really anything. But definatly not chaotic evil. New system, a sometimes good, sometimes unaligned maverik, like Tony Stark. Basically, under the new system, the two converge, with the fact that Stark generally works in the system (or is the system), and Sparrow outside it (and fights it), not affecting their alingment.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

Man, I was really hoping 4e was gonna make more progress in this area.

I agree. This is one of the few areas in 4E that I am concerned about being dissapointed with.

Good/Unaligned/Evil I was fine with. Even Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic/Unaligned I could have dealt with. But the inclusion of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil worries me. I'll wait until I read the description but from where I am, this looks like a miss from Wizards.

 

[Thasmodious]

(ok I find the exclusion on LE & CG silly)

I keep seeing this and similar statements throughout this thread and the other one. It actually seems to argue well for the new system. Few people are lamenting the "loss" of NG or LN or CN or NE, just LE and CG. Of course, they haven't actually been lost. There is a new system, they didn't take things away. Instead of 9 arbitrary, made up divisions there are 5. You can still write up the worst tyrant your game world has ever seen, and under the alignment line in your little form you can write: Evil.

The two axis were never equal and the law/chaos axis was never consistent. It was warped by the good/axis at all times. Chaotic Evil was considered (rightly so) destructive. But CG wasn't. It was considered independent.

The lawful spectrum was inconsistent. LG was the height of ethics, compassionate justice and order. LN was the bureaucrat, the police officer, societies law above all over consideration. Then LE was the tyrant, order through subjugation, power through the might of social order, etc. Lawful is inconsistent as an ideal throughout the spectrum, it is wholly a byproduct of the good-evil axis.

Same for chaos. CG was the individualist do-gooder. CN was practically considered insane (and called as much in previous editions) and random. And CE was all about destruction. Chaotic was an inconsistent descriptor that described a degree along the good-evil axis.

The good and evil axis was entirely consistent. Good was good. There were different approaches to good, but the end goals were the same. All good characters were ultimately on the same "side". Evil was evil in the same way, while there were different approaches as well. That was a consistent and solid axis. You can't say the same for lawful and chaotic types.

I don't think the new system is perfect either, and likely will simply not use alignment in my games except in a vague sense. But nothing has been taken away or combined. The descriptive spectrum has been redesigned. Looking back along the old law-chaos axis - a tyrant is Evil, a bureaucrat is unaligned, and a person of the highest moral and ethical standards is LG (which is not "gooder than good", its about that character believing that ultimate good comes through social order). A freedom loving do gooder is Good, an individualist above all else is Unaligned, and someone or thing devoted to destruction is CE.

The designers were right. There isn't must difference between NG and CG or NE and LE. A NE noble who gains power over a province would rule it pretty much the same as a LE character would. Sure, one might actually believe in his own brand of brutal justice more, but both will use the tyrannical social order to subjugate their people and maintain control. A NG and CG character either one would help the downtrodden, stand up against social injustice, etc., even while having slightly different social philosophies overall. So just going with Good and Evil still leaves you plenty of room to craft a personality under those broad umbrellas and still have the descriptor carry some meaning.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

I LOVE the old system and will stick to it!

Most people are only "mildly aligned", it's just useful flavour for TYPICAL actions, and they make perfect sense to me.

In a fantasy world, alginment is not a joke, as it is here, in many such places, you could be executed for being "evil", there could be wars between law and chaos, etc.

There are no devils or einhirar etc on our world, so, when imaging other places, their philosophies are vital, look at it here, environmentalism; Buddhism, the 3 Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism etc...look how serious they are to people.
If you added in literal, physical gods or their servants...woooha!!!
That's one thing Planescape really got and worked on

And also, alignment is just perfect for DMs to have a simple guide to a creature's likely actions, merley using two letters:

CG elf, ok, not gonna be bothered by laws and rulers, but will respect folk's lives etc.

LE hobgoblin, probbaly gonna be very honourable, but also vicious and eliminates enemies.

However, that's just general traits, not straight jackets.

4th ed seems great to me, Great Wheel..ok I can see where they are coming form with removing it, but they shouldn't have abandoned the alignment system, just reinforced it as a general attitude of creatures, not hard rules, except in extreme cases, like paladins, devils etc who either strive to portray those ideals, or are innately tied to them.

 

[Thasmodious]

Darth Vader: classic LE. He is restoring peace to the galaxy, one destroyed planet at a time. He has ethics, as far as he is concerned he is ethics. Not so moral. New system, juts evil.

First, "just" evil is enough. Second, I would dispute Vader as an example as LE. The Emperor is CE. He plays at the law and order thing, but his ultimate Sith-y goal is destruction. Vader is NE. His goal from the beginning was to gain as much power as he could, to even overcome death. His motivator was personal power. A good example of LE would be Grand Moff Tarkin.

But the Star Wars villians are also the perfect example of the weakness of the law/chaos axis. The important trait of all of those4 characters was their Evil, not their personal philosophies. It was their willingness to murder, destroy, enslave, subjugate that the Rebellion opposed.

And the Rebellion was not devoted to Chaos, as many want to claim rebels are. Han Solo's arc went from CN(g) to, really, NG. Luke went from NG to LG. Leia was always LG. But, in essense, they were simply on the side of good. And, of course, the original trilogy is one of the hallmarks of classic Good versus Evil, helping highlight that that was always the axis that mattered in the old two axis alignment system.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like the sound of the new system much more than the old system. I'll even be happy if 'lawful good' stands for 'extra-good' and chaotic evil stands for 'extra-evil' because, in truth, that is pretty much how those alignments worked out in all the past games I've played.

C'mon, how often is lawful good portrayed as stupidly good, extra-boyscouty? How often is chaotic good (or even neutral good) used as the 'roguishly good' version? Similarly lawful evil often shows up as 'urbane evil', or 'evil that keeps its word' while CE is the 'massacre babies for breakfast' setting.

One simple linear scale at least makes it considerably easier for DMs and players to all get on the same page with what alignments mean, rather than mess around with shades of meaning which get interpreted differently by different people. Heck, I've even come across three different understanding of what constitutes 'LE' behaviour (still!) in a gaming group that have known each other for 30 years.

Cheers