I came to realise I have a very precise view on how the 2 axis of alignment (Law-Chaos, Good-Evil) interact, and that’s it’s not just different from Matt Colville’s, but also from the differing ways I’ve heard alignment talked about. For me both axis are continuums; I can put my character motivations largely anywhere.
Doesn't sound odd, to me. Heck, I seem to remember a 1e allignment diagram that had examples scatter-plotted all over it. Seemed like intersecting continuuums, to me, too.
So I’d be interested to hear how everyone else personally views alignment, and how they bring that to the table as a player or GM – and if you are a GM, do you press that view early on and insist players follow it, or do you only deal with it if the characters behaviour gets too far out of tolerance?
I see alignment as mostly being about how you feel/act towards others. Good-Evil, for instance, on the good side, you are generally motivated to be kind to others (or, at last, do what you think is best for them), on the other extreme, to be cruel (maybe not overtly, as long as they suffer in the end). Uncaring is the Neutral in the middle, and can be quite horrid in it's own way, though, Neutral characters can care about specific other people or things, they just don't have the broad motivation of extreme alignments. Similarly, Chaos-Law: chaotics tend to value personal freedom & individuals, while lawfuls value societies & organizations. Put those together, and CG values personal freedom and will fight for the freedom of other individuals. LE values hierarchies, and revels in the cruelties they can inflict as oppressors.
I've always found the nine point Cartesian Coordinates Alignment system as being flawed and giving a false sense of depth. One of my big problems with the Great Wheel cosmology is that so much it is based or derived from this system.
If found it fascinating back in the day. May have had something to do with being a teenager at the time. Stuff like that seems profound when you're that young.
I did find 4e's Lawful good->good->unaligned->evil->chaotic evil to be interesting, mostly the 'unaligned' which had some subtle differences from the traditional 'neutral' alignment in D&D.
I ended up playing Unaligned, a lot.
It was the "complex motivations" alignment, if you wanted to play a more fully-realized character rather than a broad moral/ethical stereotype.
One of the best things 5e did was decouple alignment from most of the mechanics of the system.
To be fair, 5e didn't re-couple alignment to most of the mechanics. Which is significant, since they were very much part of the mechanics in the classic game, and 3e took it a step farther with all it's 'team aligment' spells & mechanics that gave very nearly exactly the same stuff to each alignment (ie Holy Word, Blasphemy, Word of Chaos, Dictum; holy, unholy, axiomatic, and anarchic weapons; etc..), so it's one of the few 4e changes that 5e didn't just snap back from as if nothing had ever happened. Even though it did snap back to the 9-alignment system.
I class neutral as the "I'm all right jack" selfish archetype - an Evil character (by my barometer) has to BEAT someone in order to get what he wants. ....But he's actively playing a positive role, be charming and polite, get people endebted to him, and help the group because that's the way he'll get the best results. He wants to actively TAKE glory away from others, not compete for it in a fair contest.
Sounds like a lot of players could qualify as that flavor of 'evil.' ;P
