Five Alignments?

[Mercule]

I think that's how it will turn out.

As do I. The "Chaotic Evil" bit doesn't really bother me so much because one meaning (the original?) is, basically, a universal void -- Chaos is that which came before creation. If that don't fit demons (at least how I've always used them) I don't know what does. I can agree that such a focus is both Evil and... something else. That something else may as well have "Chaotic" as an adjective.

I'm less sanguine about the use of "Law" as an appendix to "Good", though. Whose law? Is it still expressly the opposite of Chaos? If so, in what way? Surely not just "creation is good", otherwise, we're looking at a Werewolf-type Weaver, which wasn't Good. Obedience to the creator(s)? That fits fine into my Christian perspective, but D&D is polytheistic with explicitly fallible deities. Or is it simply to Order, in general -- in which case, I submit they have placed an arguable Evil as a designated Good.

Of course, none of our concerns may be valid. We don't know, though, because WotC decided to make a point of telling us what the new alignment system is without giving any real info. Bullet points on a long-standing source of flame wars was probably not the greatest PR idea. Then again, we're still talking about 4e.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I'm unconvinced that the description above is completely correct.

So am I.

 

[lutecius]

Try this one. There are two poles of Cosmic Philosophy, good and evil. "Alignment" means you have taken an interest in devoting yourself to acheiving the goals of that pole. The are two Sub Categories. "Lawful" Good is a subcategory for people who are good, but tie themselves to a defined code. "Chaotic" Evil is the subcategory of Evil that are beyond selfishnes and into raw destruction.

Order and Chaos are awesome for use as cosmic poles, but only in a relativistic G/E framework. Good and Evil at the same time higlight the alieness of these poles and ruin their applicability.

I completely agree about order and chaos not working in terms of personal alignment (nobody rebels against or supports order per se, you always rebel against or support a particular law/regime you either like or dislike.)

But the thing is, your definition of LG is pretty much the same as 3e's.
What makes "good people who attach themselves to a defined code" more different from "just good people"
than "evil people who attach themselves to a defined code" are from "just bad people"
If anything, a villain attached to a defined code is more distinct in play, because no matter how evil he is, you can expect him to stay true to whatever twisted code of honor he has, whereas NE and CE are equally untrustworthy.
This is a flaw in C.Sims arguments (in the evil gods thread) too, but I don’t know if this is the official word.

I am not saying they should keep the old aligments. Just that if LE can be folded into Evil, or if LN and CN can be lumped together into Unaligned, I don’t think LG and CE can be different enough to make the cut unless they mean something radically different from what they meant in previous editions.

 

[Family]

I can agree that such a focus is both Evil and... something else. That something else may as well have "Chaotic" as an adjective.

I'm less sanguine about the use of "Law" as an appendix to "Good", though.

ZOE- You've never heard of Reavers?
...
SIMON- What happens if they board us?
ZOE- If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing... and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

Zoe: "Sanguine". Hopeful. Plus, point of interest: it also means "bloody".
Mal: Well, that pretty much covers all the options, don't it?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Robust? What system did you have in mind? Because all the Paladin and Alignment debates have shown me that the 3E alignment is anything but robust.

I do mean the old, tried and true 9 point Alignment system. It has enough shades of morality and ethics to handle a wide variety of worldviews- more than 5, anyway. The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law...and that definitely doesn't conform to reality, much less fiction.

And Paladins?

Paladin threads are merely an example of people struggling with a distinction that has plagued RW humanity since the dawn of philosophy & religion- the nature of good- coupled with a class with some clunky mechanics. After all, Paladins detect evil as per the spell, meaning it takes time to use. How often do you see Paladins actually standing up in battle distinguishing between those who truly believe in the evil they serve, those who are just in it for the money, and those who are serving evil out of duress?

Generally speaking, you have people who assert that Paladins follow "Good, not Gods" whereas others let their Paladins follow "Good through Gods"- IOW, the Paladin follows the dictates of Law and Good through the prism of a particular divine entity or ethos. Furthermore, some assert that a Paladin need not show mercy to evil, while others counter that mercy is the Paladin's paramount virtue.

The problem with the first position is that in all of human history, no philosophy or religion has been able to define "Good" in such a way as to exclude all acts that we would find distasteful when put into RW action.

The problem with the second is that Gods have agendas and can be just as judgemental as the beings that worship them.

True, mercy is one of the highest virtues there is- it is at its foundation a recognition that anyone may change from the path of evil, given time and the right circumstances. But in a game where there are probable corporeal interactions between mortals and beings for whom their alignment is integral to their nature- demons, devils, angels, etc.- the question of mercy is far more complex than in the RW. Even absent consideration of supernatural beings, the ability for even mortals to change alignment- specifically in the case of humanoid opponents like Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc.- is a campaign-specific question. IOW, the need for Paladins to show mercy is 1) highly situational and 2) campaign dependent.

 

[Lackhand]

Tangential musing: If I had to come up with a new alignment system, I don't think I'd pick a 5 bucket system.
I'd pick the same two poles that they did -- Good versus Evil as the default for the game, because you need holy powers and an alignment for Team Cartoonishly Evil (Undead, Devils, and so on).

But for Lawful and Chaotic? I think I'd make the other term an unfixed personality descriptor.
Lawful for Good versus Dominating for Evil; Independent for Good versus Chaotic for Evil; that kind of thing. The rules are that they don't need to match up, and that they should avoid having opposite connotations to their use.
Chaotic is never a good word. If you think that it is, it's because you're contrasting it with stagnant (which is even worse) or D&D has infected your vocabulary. Independent is usually a good word. I'd rather be Indep Good than CG, any day.
Lawful is more (heh) neutral, but I think on the whole it connotes "just" and "good" enough that it can stay.

Yes, it's an infinite number of alignments, but if you treat them like Real Descriptors (damage types, bonus types...) it's not that bad. Besides, most of the rules center on the struggle of Good v Evil; the descriptors then become role playing aids that are _far_ more helpful than just Lawful versus Chaotic, which end up not being that helpful anyway.

 

[lutecius]

How could you people let this thread slide to page 3?
It's so much better than the other alignment threads! it pwns "miss cg" and "evil gods" any day!!

...
But the thing is, your definition of LG is pretty much the same as 3e's.
What makes "good people who attach themselves to a defined code" more different from "just good people"
than "evil people who attach themselves to a defined code" are from "just bad people"

If anything, a villain attached to a defined code is more distinct in play, because no matter how evil he is, you can expect him to stay true to whatever twisted code of honor he has, whereas NE and CE are equally untrustworthy.
This is a flaw in C.Sims arguments (in the evil gods thread) too, but I don’t know if this is the official word.

I am not saying they should keep the old aligments. Just that if LE can be folded into Evil, or if LN and CN can be lumped together into Unaligned, I don’t think LG and CE can be different enough to make the cut unless they mean something radically different from what they meant in previous editions.

...and apparently they don't. So all our points were valid. Weaksauce :\
I know alignment is just fluff now, I just hope they haven't spent too much time or paid anyone too much to come up with this.

 

[hong]

I do mean the old, tried and true 9 point Alignment system. It has enough shades of morality and ethics to handle a wide variety of worldviews- more than 5, anyway. The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law...and that definitely doesn't conform to reality, much less fiction.

WHY DOES NOONE LISTEN TO ME??/!

Actually, nothing revealed so far mandates the specific ordering LG-G-U-E-CE. You can just as easily read the new system as saying LG is a dilution of G, as an intensification of it. In fact, you can also say that LG sits alongside G and is neither better nor worse, just different. It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's just that people have taken it as read that LG is more worthy than G for some reason.

Not me.

The new system- linear or not- that has LG and CE rating their own designation while other gradations of G&E are simply lumped together in an undifferentiated mass is weak.

I would have been happier with a 3 point G-U-E system (with PC's methods to achieving their ends being undefined by Law or Chaos) than this hybrid mess.

 

[hong]

Not me.

Ahem.

The 4Ed take doesn't seem to recognize that good can arise from chaos, or that evil can be spawned from law​