Five Alignments?

[Mercule]

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

That is exactly what I'm hoping. I'm just having a hard time coming up with meanings that both represent a rational continuation of the legacy terms and don't somehow include the notion that LG is somehow "more good" than regular good.

The best I can think of is that LG and CE represent the way-old-school L/N/C axis. Sort of a St. Cuthbert vs. the Wyrm or a situation where the dogma of law assumes order == good opposes unbounded hedonism and self-absorption. If that -- or something similar -- is what's going on, then I'll be okay. LG and CE will simply be the alignments of those who are missing the point, which isn't so much of a change in my sensibilities.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

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?

Sounds more like old-style Neutral Good. Chaotic good in essence would seem to be more like ignoring a person's personal choices for their own wellbeing.

I think that the new "Good" can apply to both the old Chaotic and Neutral Good; you care about the common good more than the order/precedents through which it is enforced. "Lawful Good" would care about the state of society and the repercussions of one's actions, seeing the longterm rather than the short.
Meanwhile, the new "Evil" can apply to both the old Lawful and Neutral Evil; you're evil for yourself, rather than because it is how you were made/raised. If you're "Chaotic Evil" it is because you are deranged, insane, or brought up to respect the essence of doing harm to others for no reason, which is against the logical natural order.

I personally think they just streamlined it.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Now, that really makes it sound like "lawful" simply means nothing more than "double-plus-good" instead its old flavor of "working through major organizations, following unbendable rules"....

But Lawful Good's old flavor was about seeking the good of the community as a whole and following personal codes of honor, the stuff you are talking about would never have been in LG.

 

[Kvantum]

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."

Then those in charge of enforcing the laws must be given power, and since power corrupts, Goodness cannot actually govern.

(Not disputing the point, just seeing where the logic leads.)

 

[Lurks-no-More]

The fact that people can, and constantly do, have so wildly different ideas of what Chaotic and Lawful mean is, IMO, the best reason to give up on them and streamline the alignments.

 

[Exen Trik]

Am I the only one who simply likes this?

The way I see it, every alignment had a social aspect to them in respect to laws and such, but Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil doubled as the "strict moral code" and "just kill everything" roles. No other alignment had such additional extremes to them. So all they did was take those out make them separate, while removing the social aspects from good and evil.

 

[Korgoth]

Then those in charge of enforcing the laws must be given power, and since power corrupts, Goodness cannot actually govern.

(Not disputing the point, just seeing where the logic leads.)

Obviously "power corrupts" is not an axiom of Lawful Good philosophy.

Actually it's a paraphrase of Lord Acton, who held a particular view (characterized as "Liberalism") of history and social relations. I won't get into an evaluation of that view, but it would be wrong to simply assume that the axioms of Liberalism are fundamental truths of reality. They might be, or they might not be... it has to be argued for, rather than assumed.

 

[Mercule]

axioms of Liberalism are fundamental truths of reality. They might be, or they might not be... it has to be argued for, rather than assumed.

Classical Liberalism or modern Liberalism? European or American Liberalism? Social or economic?

* Not starting a real political discussion, just validating the OP's point.

 

[Korgoth]

Classical Liberalism or modern Liberalism? European or American Liberalism? Social or economic?

* Not starting a real political discussion, just validating the OP's point.

I said I was talking about Lord Acton.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

This is (so far) the only change in D&D that I definitely don't like...

Well, the second one, since I had a strong knee-jerk rejection of the 1-1-1-1 movement... However, that one has actually started to grow on me after I had a 30 minute discussion about areas of effect in our 3.5 game (rounded fireballs that only affect squares are not as bad as mid-game arguments between players and DM)

But back to alignments... Not too long ago I was complaining in another forum that the 3x3 grid of alignments was too restrictive and I was proposing an Ethics/Morality scale to give more options to players to describe their characters...

Someone on RPG.net suggested an (alternative?) take of this:

Good - pure, altruistic, saintly good.
LG - social goodness, moderated by the society and the laws.
Unaligned - getting along and minding your own business
CE - petty, selfish evil, without an overarching motivation.
Evil - pure, metaphysically motivated evil.

If this is the official version, it might make a bit more sense, but ultimately I suspect that the design team wanted to get rid of alignments but someone argued that "chaotic evil" and "lawful good" were sacred cow phrases... Like the new saving throws, which should be called something else entirely, or Hit Points