Five Alignments?

[Korgoth]

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.

You're good or evil depending upon the objective content of your actions. You can tell yourself that starving off a million peasant farmers is "for the greater good", but you're still evil because you starved a bunch of innocent people to death. It doesn't matter why you did it, or under what "internal description". Good and evil are structural properties of actions. A person is called good or evil depending upon whether the structure of his actions habitually conform to one or the other.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You're good or evil depending upon the objective content of your actions. You can tell yourself that starving off a million peasant farmers is "for the greater good", but you're still evil because you starved a bunch of innocent people to death. It doesn't matter why you did it, or under what "internal description". Good and evil are structural properties of actions. A person is called good or evil depending upon whether the structure of his actions habitually conform to one or the other.

By that token then, a Lawful Good Paladin would be Evil because Devils think him so for killing them off.

Thus why I am talking about how each NPC, Monster, PCs internal view is their alignment, not how they are viewed by others.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

No, it isn't.

4E's system conflates Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil. It's pretty much impossible to get more 1950s comic-book than that, I'd suggest.

3x3 may be a bit 1960s Jack Kirby at Marvel "great order of the universe" sort of thing, but it's essentially a more complex, nuanced way of describing people, and less like some bad 1950s media drivel.

Either system was seeming pretty silly and retrograde in the 1980s, let alone 2008, but at least the 3x3 grid had the happy advantage of mapping to epic fantasy a bit better than 4E's one. Particularly considering how many characters in epic fantasy (other than Tolkien's stuff) are good example of someone who is extremely good, but doesn't seem to believe that "Law = Good", or more importantly, how many ultra-villains are really all about the "order", and certainly don't fit any previous "CE" mould.

 

[Korgoth]

By that token then, a Lawful Good Paladin would be Evil because Devils think him so for killing them off.

Thus why I am talking about how each NPC, Monster, PCs internal view is their alignment, not how they are viewed by others.

No, that's the opposite of my point. You're casting it as if the two choices are "you're good if you think so" and "you're good if others think so".

I'm maintaining that being good or evil has absolutely nothing to do with what anybody thinks. It depends entirely on what you do. If what you do is objectively good, done with full knowledge and consent and a firm habit, then you're good... regardless of what anyone thinks. If what you do is objectively evil, done with full knowledge and consent and a firm habit, then you're evil, regardless of what anyone (including yourself) thinks.

 

[Quantarum]

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

Someone can do perfectly horrible things and still be ethical within the framework of their circumstances, but morals are supposed to be consistent across all situations. This is why moral dilemmas are more profound than ethical ones. Cutting open someone's chest and removing their still beating heart is ethically acceptable for both Aztec priests and heart surgeons, but the moral implications are far different. This is just my opinion based on the classes on ethics I had to take at work.
I do wonder if the extreme alignments were added simply for the benefit of the far realms and demons, representing philosophies of pure nilism opposed by the yet unseen beatific lawful good entities.
Never mind, that sounds too much like needless symmetry.

-Q.

 

[The Little Raven]

at least the 3x3 grid had the happy advantage of mapping to epic fantasy a bit better than 4E's one

No. The 3x3 grid was piss-poor for epic fantasy.

 

[Byronic]

Personally I would rather see the Lawful - Neutral - Chaostic as inclinations while we can keep Good - Neutral - Bad as a more moral spectrum (with neutral representing matters from a philosophical view to simple indifference), Good and Evil being somewhat more dedicated.

Lawful represents an inclination towards order, stability etc, which one finds in different things from loyalty to laws to other matters while Chaotic has other preferences. To explain a few examples.

What happens when a CE and a LE person come into a good society. The Chaotic Evil person might kill rampage as much as he wants. He might take steps so that nobody else finds out but he feels no real need to work within the law. The Lawful Evil person might take other steps. A smear campaign to get himself elected for example where he can use whatever holes he can find in the system to benefit himself. It's not that the LE person wouldn't break a law it's that he wouldn't break laws that will get him kicked out of the halls of power. Tax Fraud and a bit of embezzlement would be a nice way to get money while a CE person might want to rob a bank. he difference is that a white collar crime is more socially acceptable and he can always build up again if it really goes wrong. Lawful Evil people are more likely to have ties to the society because society is important for them (as it is orderly, has rules it can exploit etc) while CE doesn't care as much as long since it probably wants a more free lifestyle.

A Lawful Good and Lawful Evil person can both be relied upon to keep their word (especially if it's done publically). The LG Paladin might do this because it's one of his rules. He wishes to be good and follows the code to be good. Keeping ones word is one of the things we need in a society. The Lawful Evil baron can be trusted to keep his word as well. But that's because if he doesn't no one will trust his word any more and he can't work within the orderly mainframe (carrot and stick method doesn't work as well when people don't believe in the carrot)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

I think the general line has been "9 way alignment was flawed, but much better then the new one."

Honestly, I think the big gripe is that Lawful now equals good. If you're going to cut the law/chaos axis, cut the whole thing. Don't make lawful = good and chaotic = evil. Darth Vader is suddenly less evil because he's bringing order to the galaxy. Robin Hood is suddenly less good because his method of fighting is through banditry.

Here's where the big end problem of this is - if you have a setting where there's a lawful evil empire, you can't fight against it. Because that's unlawful, and chaos = evil. Likewise, if you find a merry group of bandits, you have to turn them in, because they're evil for not being lawful.

 

[smetzger]

Yeah it would have been better to remove them completely rather than remove some. Though unaligned was very much needed.

Dang, I thought they had fixed this. Why not just good, neutral, and evil?

Now we can have arguments about what is Good and what is Lawful Good, yipee.

 

[Andor]

I think the general line has been "9 way alignment was flawed, but much better then the new one."

Honestly, I think the big gripe is that Lawful now equals good. If you're going to cut the law/chaos axis, cut the whole thing. Don't make lawful = good and chaotic = evil. Darth Vader is suddenly less evil because he's bringing order to the galaxy. Robin Hood is suddenly less good because his method of fighting is through banditry.

Here's where the big end problem of this is - if you have a setting where there's a lawful evil empire, you can't fight against it. Because that's unlawful, and chaos = evil. Likewise, if you find a merry group of bandits, you have to turn them in, because they're evil for not being lawful.

I do think it worked better int the original WHFRPG where it was Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic where it was important to note that Lawful was not good and Chaotic was not evil although the distinction there was more academic. If either Chaos or Law had won it would have been the end of the world.