Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4235632" data-attributes="member: 5100">This.Is "Good" Chaotic Good, Neutral Good or both under one umbrella.  I expect the official answer is "both".  One of the staffers posed the question whether anyone could tell a difference between CG and NG.  Um... at least as much as between LG and NG.  Sure, CG may have to shy away from pure, unadulterated freedom to avoid unintended harm from people who would only use their freedom for ill, but LG would have as much restriction on enforcing order, lest people become dull-witted and unthinking.  Sure, it's a ludicrously extreme argument, but no more so than the one that could be applied to CG.As I've said before, I kinda dig that they went with CE being the elemental sort of chaos and the destruction of everything.  So far, though, the information about splitting Good makes absolutely no sense.  Why do those seeking Good through Order deserve a breakout while those seeking Good through Freedom or Good through Balance don't?  What's so bloody special about them?In typing this, though, I have thought of one way in which this could all work out.  We essentially have two types of evil that differ by virtue of one kind (Evil) recognizing that the multiverse is where they keep their stuff, so it might be inconvenient to end it.  If we define the difference between the two kinds of good based on what kind of evil they find most threatening, it makes some sense.  Both recognize that any evil is bad (gosh, that sounds dumb), but LG looks at Evil and says, "Well, at least the universe will continue to exist if they win.  It'd suck, but we could recover, eventually."  Meanwhile, Good says, "CE has such a huge task, they're unlikely to ever actually win, or we'll get notice.  Let's concentrate on making the universe a better place.  We might actually make some headway, there."So, a functional definition of the alignments that I actually like:CE: The universe sucks and violates our sensibilities.  It needs to be destroyed.  We'll figure out what happens later, later.Evil: I kinda like being here.  In fact, I like it so much, I want to own it all.LG: There are some beings crazy enough to nuke us all.  Why don't we do something about it?  Yeah, yeah.  Freedom, liberty, prosperity, happiness.  Those are nice and we support them, but they really don't mean squat if you ain't here to enjoy them.Good: We have to ensure that what we're fighting to protect remains something worth protecting.  Let us know when you find that cache of weapons of mass destruction.  Until then, we're going to work on the economy and civil rights.Unaligned: You say there's a trans-planar, philosophic war for our survival and free will, huh?  Have fun with that.  Myself, I think I'm going to go out and loot some dead guys (or loot some orcs I make dead).  But, while you're up, I think Bob the smith cheated me on the horse shoes he sold me.  Could you look into that, oh moral compass?If that is the new alignment system in a nutshell, sign me up.  I likee.  If they just couldn't tell the difference between NG and CG or LE and NE, so they axed 'em, well... I'm unimpressed (and not saying anything else, since I couldn't say anything nice -- or even not mean).</blockquote>

Verification