Five Alignments?

[Twiggly the Gnome]

It does seems a bit inelegant. If you include LG and CE, it seems strange to beg off the prospect of LE and CG. If they are just G++ and E++, I think I'll just replace the terms with Beatific and Diabolical.

 

[malraux]

Meh, 4 down, 5 to go. Really I don't think anything would be lost by trashing the whole alignment concept.

 

[Kvantum]

See, I think that true Goodness implies Law (though not vice versa). So I would tend to see "Chaotic Good" as "sorta good".

CG as Optimistic Good, hoping that people will do the right thing, even without the laws there to force them to; and LG as Pessimistic Good, wanting people to do the right thing, even if they have to force them to through laws?

 

[doctorhook]

My gut reaction (having not seen exactly what form alignment takes in 4E) is that this is a step backwards. It seems arbitrary. OTOH, since it seems so arbitrary, it doesn't strike me as a stretch to change LG to CG and CE to LE, but then, that's just as arbitrary, isn't it?

I'm happy with the changes that remove detect alignment (and the associated problems) from the game, and I'm very happy with the new Unaligned alignment (possibly the greatest thing to happen to alignment, ever). I also imagine that these could have unforeseen consequences for alignment.

Upon reflection, I suspect that the 'missing' alignments were probably removed to discourage alignment 'straightjacketing' by players and novice DMs; perhaps since many characters will simply by Unaligned, it will only be a very rare few who are truly LG or CE, the most extreme alignments presented. In a sudden burst of optimism, I'm imagining that maybe we'll get the other three 'extreme alignments' -- CG, LE, and True Neutral -- presented to us in PH2 as further roleplaying options, since alignment will likely not have mechanical benefit.

Unaligned, Good and Evil, and five extreme alignments would basically cover all the options, not to mention give us more functionality than we have now. (I don't honestly believe LN and CN provide much to the game.)

 

[Nymrohd]

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

 

[Korgoth]

CG as Optimistic Good, hoping that people will do the right thing, even without the laws there to force them to; and LG as Pessimistic Good, wanting people to do the right thing, even if they have to force them to through laws?

I guess it depends on if you count Prudence as a virtue, and if you think that "hoping people will do the right thing" is prudent. The argument would go like this: "A society governed by Goodness will ensure justice for each of its members. Justice is ensured only through laws."

 

[Andor]

.... The original WHFRPG had a 5 element alignment scale that went Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic.

Huh.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I think it's more like LG is a Subset of Good, one that focuses on a strict personal code of behavior, not compromising the internals, but still absolutely good. The "Domineering" part of the "Old LG" goes to unaligned. I don't see that this part of good being "more" good than others but it is distinctive.

Chaotic Evil represents the sort of mad scenery chewing evil. It doesn't mean "more evil".

 

[Mouseferatu]

Don't assume that G, LG, E, and CE mean exactly the same in 4E than they did in prior editions.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it's more like LG is a Subset of Good, one that focuses on a strict personal code of behavior, not compromising the internals, but still absolutely good. The "Domineering" part of the "Old LG" goes to unaligned. I don't see that this part of good being "more" good than others but it is distinctive.

Chaotic Evil represents the sort of mad scenery chewing evil. It doesn't mean "more evil".

Without saying whether Gene's right or wrong in terms of specifics, I will say that this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Things don't necessarily mean what they used to, and some things aren't "missing" so much as "no longer differentiated enough to need their own categories" under the new (and broader) definitions.