Five Alignments?

[Plane Sailing]

I read "noone could agree upon exactly what certain alignments meant anyway".

I think "Does that matter? Every interpretation a player or DM makes helps them along in their creativity.

I'll give an example for why I think it matters.

One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.

DM tells player of LE monk that he is going to lose his LE alignment (and thus lose the ability to progress as a monk) because a LE character must obey the laws of the land (!)

This difference in interpretations on what constitutes LE, effectively flagged up "LE" as a bizarrely unplayable alignment in that DMs campaign - but too late to help the player of the monk.

The other thing I'd say on the issue of alignment is that this thread is the first one I can remember where some people are actively defending the idea of the 9 way alignment system. Pretty much every other thread about alignment in ENworlds history has largely been about the problems it causes, and even amongst those who espouse it there is very little agreement about what it actually means.

Cheers

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.

Actually I'd say it is much less comic book styled. Before it was, "because of your actions you have been determined to be, NE, so you go to this plane and are allies with this, blah, blah, blah".

Now with how I have read the 4e alignment it is much more about how the individual person has developed this personal view of the world and why they act this way.

• A Chaotic Evil person in my eyes, acts out in instinctual, primal manner to something they fear or detest. They act because of this hatred, fear or detest in a way that is detrimental to the subject. Thus why things like Orcs or Demons are Chaotic Evil.
  
  You could even have a Paladin serving a "good god" and be Chaotic Evil, because he instinctual fear and detests certain beings like say Tieflings and would immediately wish their demise.
  
  
• A plain Evil character knows that what they are doing is for the betterment of themselves at the cost of others. Thus why things like Devils are just Evil since they know what their doing is to get ahead at the cost of those other Devils.
  
  
• While with Lawful Good they believe that by following a strict code of laws set by either themselves or an outside force they are bettering themselves and others.
  
  Thus you can have your classic Lawful Good Paladin. BUT! You could also have a tyrannical evil king who believes his laws will help his people, even if they are cruel and perverse.
  
  
• Just plain good, is when simply wishes to help himself and the world at large, not because of any strict law or code they follow but because they feel that is the proper course of action.
  
  Now like with my previous examples what that person identifies as good can change. What sets it apart from Evil is they truly believe what their doing also benefits others.
  
  
• Unaligned are simply those who are well unaligned. They have no wish to better themselves or others beyond their immediate concerns or to better their position at the expense of others like Evil. Nor do they have a strict code they follow or an instinctual sense that their controlled by. They simply exist to live through life as best they can.

 

[Spatula]

I'll give an example for why I think it matters.

One person is playing a LE monk. Returning with his party to another country in which murder has been done, they are met with border guards. Someone fails their will save against zone of truth and admits that the party is "the wuns what done it". Party decimates the guards and decide to cut their losses and go to a different country instead.

DM tells player of LE monk that he is going to lose his LE alignment (and thus lose the ability to progress as a monk) because a LE character must obey the laws of the land (!)

This difference in interpretations on what constitutes LE, effectively flagged up "LE" as a bizarrely unplayable alignment in that DMs campaign - but too late to help the player of the monk.

Yes, exactly. Thankfully they're getting rid of alignment restrictions on stuff, so that DM-player disagreements on what the character's alignment means can no longer result in characters losing their powers.

Additionally, in 1e (and 2e? I don't recall on that score), changing your alignment carried heavy XP penalties, so the alignment debate with the DM could screw over the players there, too. "Sorry, you're no longer Lawful, you lose a class level."

The point of game rules is that their meaning is well-understood by the people using them. If they are not, they serve only to grind games to a halt as people argue over the meaning of "stunned." (or whatever) One of the best things that 3e did in this regard (and 4e is continuing) is having well-defined words that clearly define how abilities work (i.e. target is dazed for 3 rounds, where "dazed" has a common meaning that doesn't allow for creative interpretations). Without that, the quality of your play experience is directly related to how well your view of the rules matches up with the views of those that you are playing with - which makes it harder to find groups to play with.

*shudders at the memories of playing Games Workshop wargames*

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fallen Seraph - That's fine for how you'll run it in your games, but I don't for a moment believe that's what it is written down like in the 4E books, nor is it how NPCs, monsters and so on will be aligned. I mean, if someone can be effectively evil and tyrannical yet "LG", that kind of removes the point of E and CE, to me, because who seriously thinks that they're evil outside of the comic books? That's just not how people think. Even the greatest villains in history largely decieve themselves into thinking they're "doing good".

Honestly, it sounds like the Evil characters in your games have more of a "moral compass" than the Good ones, too, which is fascinatingly bizarre. You might as well re-name Evil to "Self-aware" and Good to "Self-deluding" or something.

Edit - In case anyone gets me wrong, I'm totally down with removing the mechanical links to alignment, I'm just deeply puzzled by their apparently decision to include a version of "super-good" and "super-evil" and label them with existing D&D alignment names.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

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.

I can except this, but if this is the intent, they should have changed the names I think.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Fallen SeraphEven the greatest villains in history largely decieve themselves into thinking they're "doing good".

Well that is sorta the point, a in real-life dictator would be "lawful good" because in his eyes he is using the law to do good.

Now, if he was using laws only to better himself, that be evil. Since while he may not consider himself "evil" (these terms would never actually exist in-game), he knows all his goals are self-centred and only for his own good.

While a good person would truly believe they can make a positive difference in the world be good because of that mindset.

I wouldn't say it is super-good or super-evil either, again through my eyes. Since as shown LG certainly can be not pleasant or good as we looking in would view it. Nor is CE always viewed by those who know of a person who is such.

 

[see]

Either the system conflates Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil, or it doesn't.

If it conflates them, then the system is linear. Which is the same as one-dimensional. Suddenly a character who, say, believes that the existence of laws and government is inherently oppressive and evil is automatically less good than one who believes in order.

If it doesn't conflate them, then it just deliberately blurs potentially useful distinctions. We can argue endlessly about where the exact border is between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, but that character who believes that the existence of laws is inherently oppressive and evil is not Neutral Good and never was. Sure, there's no need to keep him distinct, but what need is there to keep Lawful Good distinct from Good, either? Just declare them all Good.

 

[Geek-Zilla]

I've always had a problem with the alignment system for PCs in D&D. I just found it rather limiting to say that an "evil" character lacks the capacity for generosity, and a "good" character lacks the ability to be cruel (and the implied penalties for going outside that box). Now alignments for NPCs and monsters, I have no problem with because it helps establish a frame work for that individual's (or group's) motivation in a given situation.

I'll be interested in how 4E explains the different alignments in the core books.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I honestly don't even see the need to use Lawful or Chaotic to define either. Good, Evil and Unaligned, while relative, seem simple enough.

Although I do like the fact that alignment seems to be an afterthought in 4E, and is entirely optional without any strict mechanics in place to "manage" it.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yeah. It's a little bit more sad and surprising this time, because it's not just the "same 'ol, same 'ol", they actually went and modified the system and came up with something even more stupid, more 1950s comic book, and less in-tune with epic fantasy.

The 3x3 grid is way more comic book-y than the new system.