Five Alignments?

[Spatula]

The utopia scenario could also be applied to Lawful Good characters. Put a LG Paladin in a distopia of perfectly evil laws. This forces the Paladin into a hard choice: be lawful or be good?

Lawful doesn't mean "must follow laws." And Chaotic doesn't mean "can't follow laws." They represent the philosophical conflict between Order and Anarchy, Structure vs Freedom, and so on. That people still don't get this after it's been spelled out in the PHB for all of AD&D's history just shows how inappropriately chosen and weighted with baggage the two terms (especially "Lawful") are.

 

[thalmin]

I didn't read through the section on allignments, only enough to get the five names, so I don't know the linear extremes. I can't say that CE is more evil or worse than Evil. I just remembered that there were 5 and jotted down the names as I passed the book to someone else.

 

[Family]

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

I was actually quite happy with the proposed alignment change that they had, back when it was going to be "Unaligned, unless you're Good or Evil." I think it ought to be:

Unaligned: You're a regular guy. You make up your own mind and do what is in keeping with your own code of ethics. Nearly everyone in the world is this, including most adventurers and a healthy portion of the monsters they fight.
Good: You serve the metaphysical forces of goodness. Maybe you're an immortal celestial, maybe you're a paladin, maybe you're a cleric empowered by Pelor.
Evil: You are more than just an evil individual. You work for evil. You actively promote Team Evil. You play for the Greyhawk City Evils. You're a demon, or a devil, or a crypt-haunting lich, or sold your soul to Asmodeus, or have been indelibly tainted by the forces of evil.

In this system, alignment only determines whether or not you have been claimed by a side in the good-versus-evil struggle. Most evil people are not Evil. They're just selfish and greedy and don't take an interest in others. And that's all that it means, just like in real life. Most good people are not Good. You may be the nicest guy anyone could ever want, but you don't need to have an alignment unless Pelor has stamped your soul with his own, personal seal.

 

[drothgery]

FWIW, I think the new 5-alignment setup is probably a better reflection of actual play than the 9-alignment setup. In my experience, NG and CG heroes have seemed equally willing to bend and/or break the rules for the greater good, while NE and LE villians have seemed equally willing to lay long plans and corrupt the system rather than start a bloodbath right away. And characters who were neutral with respect to good and evil always seemed capable of justifying any but the most extreme actions.

 

[pawsplay]

If it went Good -> Lawful Good -> Unaligned -> Chaotic Evil -> Evil it would actually parallel the old Warhammer fantasy rpg system.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

But alignment in 4E is only fluff

Maybe not completely, wasn't there something about unaligned paladins being unallowed?

 

[MaelStorm]

Maybe not completely, wasn't there something about unaligned paladins being unallowed?

Maybe it has changed since, but in a The Tome podcast, Andy Collins mentioned alignment in 4E was only fluff (that there were no mechanical effects, like Detect Evil, etc.).

 

[lutecius]

Now let's look at Lawful Evil. Suppose a Lawful Evil creature discovered a utopian kingdom with laws that perfectly mandated good behavior. Would that creature cease to behave evilly in order to remain lawful? It seems unlikely. Hence, it is unlikely that there are any truly lawful evil creatures. Rather, there are only evil creatures who can tolerate lawfulness. That makes them simply Evil, not Lawful Evil.

The utopia scenario could also be applied to Lawful Good characters. Put a LG Paladin in a distopia of perfectly evil laws. This forces the Paladin into a hard choice: be lawful or be good? However, that also seems like a conflict it makes sense to throw at players. It seems much harder to conclude what the Paladin's choice will be than to conclude that a lawful evil NPC would choose evil over lawfulness. Perhaps if D&D weren't focused on good protagonists and evil antagonists we'd have to treat them the same, but in general it seems more useful to keep Lawful Good and toss Lawful Evil aside.

Not trying to defend dnd aligment here, but I don't find the LG character in a LE dystopia more unlikely than the reverse. He might try to change the system from within, intrigue to place a good ruler on the throne or simply treat his slaves well.
But I suspect LG will mean something completely different in 4e.

If it went Good -> Lawful Good -> Unaligned -> Chaotic Evil -> Evil it would actually parallel the old Warhammer fantasy rpg system.

I think you've got it wrong. It was more like: Law (LG) > Good > Neutral > Evil > Chaos (CE)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Why is everyone assuming a perfectly linear continuum, anyway? Where did the notion that either G or LG must be "more good" than the other, or that E or CE must be "more evil," come from?