Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrGrenadine" data-source="post: 4230884" data-attributes="member: 62619">I've always found the alignment system to be a great shorthand for describing a character's general attitude about the universe, but I can see why some folks would play without any alignment system at all.Part of the problem (besides folks disagreeing about the definitions of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil), is that WotC made the Chaos-Law axis a universal axis, on par with Good-Evil, (basically defining Lawful as those that want a universe of sentient beings and physical laws, and Chaotic as those who want to destroy the universe).  Honestly, the addition of Protection and Detect spells of Chaos and Law supports this idea, but I never saw it that way, myself, and it was clearly not the case in earlier iterations if D&D (see the 2e alignment descriptions).  Whatever--its the designer's sandbox--but now that they've made Chaos and Law universal concepts, that means the older alignment system isn't as elegant.However, I've always seen *only* the Good-Evil axis as universal.  IMC, Good and Evil are forces in the universe, with champions on both sides vying for victory over the other, and how a character acts in the universe places him or her somewhere on that axis.  The concept of Good has an absolute, just as the concept of Evil.  Murder of another sentient being without any provocation is an evil act, everywhere.  Risking your life to save the life of another is a good act.   Yes--a country could decide that it is unlawful to save someone's life, or encourage the wholesale slaughter of innocents--but that would not make self-sacrifice 'evil' or murder 'good'.  That would only define those acts as lawful or unlawful. Chaos and Law, on the other hand, aren't universal, because laws change from culture to culture, country to country, state to state, religion to religion, etc.So, to say you are Lawful doesn't mean you obey every rule someone scrawls on a sign by the side of the road.  Lawful means you abide by a set of laws.  Period.  Those laws may be a combination of religious observances, moral leanings, customs from your home-country--whatever.  The point is that you follow them.Chaotic, on the other hand, means that you do not abide by a set of laws--you can wear what you want, go where you want, eat what you want, cross the street when you want, etc etc.Acting lawful or unlawful is really independent of the Good-Evil axis.  A character could easily and clearly be Chaotic and a champion of Good, or Lawful and a champion of Evil.  (There are plenty of examples for both of these attitudes in RL and fiction, as others have pointed out).The idea of Neutral in the old system seems to be a sticking point with some folks, because its perfectly reasonable for someone who is Neutral on either axis to be there for different reasons.  For instance, the character could be truly Neutral, refusing or not caring to take sides between Good and Evil.  Or perhaps he or she is Neutral on the way from one end of the axis to the other, (since alignments are merely a shorthand to describe how a character would act in most cases based on how they've acted in the past, they're in a constant state of flux).So the two crossing, but independent axes--Good-Evil and Chaos-Law--make a lot of sense to me, and open characters up to a wider variety of attitudes.  Why have one descriptor--Good--for both CG and NG, if players want to make that distinction?  And how can it be that everyone who obeys a set of laws does so to further the cause of Good?  Characters should have the freedom to walk the thin lines between all of these forces, and change their minds as they go, just like us.Me, I'm gonna stick with the older system, and if Protection From and Detect Good/Evil go missing from 4e, I'm going to add them back.</blockquote>

Verification