I miss CG

[muffin_of_chaos]

Before, there wasn't much point in defining Chaotic Good vs. Neutral Good, because unless you make them really prescriptive they end up referring to the same thing: doing what you think is right rather than what society thinks is right.
As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt. And if you have misguided ideals of evil, and think that they are laws, that is actually a chaotic way of thinking (being irrational).

 

[Bishmon]

As well, Lawful Evil never really made sense, because evil in and of itself can't have rules; a society could not be built upon hurting one another, because no one would agree to being hurt.

That's odd. I can safely say I've never thought of a lawful evil society as one predicated upon everyone hurting each other.

When I think lawful evil, I think a society at ease with oppressing certain people (based on social class, race, etc.), slavery, preemptive and total war, etc.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The new alignment system is actually pretty simple:

Lawful Good: You have given both subjects a lot of thought and have actively chosen to uphold the very precepts of goodness and feel strongly inclined towards justice and upholding the law.

Good: You have given it much thought and you uphold your concept of goodness regardless of if it puts you against the laws of the land

Unaligned: You've either never given lofty concepts such as Law, Goodness, Evil, or Chaos any significant thought and just live your life as you see fit, or you've thought about it and none of them appeal.

Evil: You have actively chosen to serve evil, or at least think that those who serve good are so feeble and weak-minded that you a certainly not that .

Chaotic Evil: You have actively chosen to serve evil and take great pleasure in destroying all that is good, and would love nothing more than to see all creation torn assunder.

And THAT is why most 4E characters and creatures are unaligned. They simply live their lives.

Fits

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Lawful Evil never really made sense,

What do you mean? Many lawyers, politicians, and all rules lawyers are lawful evil. Knowingly using and/or manipulating the law /rules to serve your own ends rather than recognising what those laws/rules were intended for.

Fitz

Hmmm... interesting how the Law vs Chaos argument can be similar to the RAW/RAI argument...

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm guessing CE/LG is more in relation to Abyss/Gods who want to preserve reality for the good of all thing.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I really don't see why you need a specific alignment to exist to play the character you want to play. (Personally I've rarely used alignments, so what do I know?)

Fitz

So how did you deal with spells like Detect Good/Evil, Protection from Good/Evil, Dispel Good/Evil? Did you just remove them from the game? Seems like more work than it's worth. Did you give the Paladin something in exchange for removing Detect Evil?

 

[RigaMortus2]

What do you mean? Many lawyers, politicians, and all rules lawyers are lawful evil. Knowingly using and/or manipulating the law /rules to serve your own ends rather than recognising what those laws/rules were intended for.

Fitz

Hmmm... interesting how the Law vs Chaos argument can be similar to the RAW/RAI argument...

Seems more Chaotic to me... You have a rule. You know what it's used for. But you twist that rule (or law) to benefit you. You migh even re-interpret the rule/law. Seems more on the Chaos side. It's turning law into chaos.

 

[Incenjucar]

Seems more Chaotic to me... You have a rule. You know what it's used for. But you twist that rule (or law) to benefit you. You migh even re-interpret the rule/law. Seems more on the Chaos side. It's turning law into chaos.

Chaos is disorder.

Nothing is disorderly about having your political enemies executed due to a loophole.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

When I think lawful evil, I think a society at ease with oppressing certain people (based on social class, race, etc.), slavery, preemptive and total war, etc.

But in the case that one is following the laws, they aren't evil--the laws are bad. If eating animals turns out to be evil, is everyone who isn't a vegetarian Evil?
Understanding that a law is Bad and following it doesn't make you somehow lawful at heart, but just plain old Evil. This is because laws can't be meant to support Evil, because laws are generally agreed upon.
If you *can't* understand that a law is Bad, and follow it because you think laws are good for their own sake, then you are inherently irrational, and thus Chaotic at heart--anyone can give you any rule and you'll follow it.

This is what I think WotC's point of view is and I think they're right that the old system wasn't as useful in determining the actual nature of a person. (Not that I think alignments are a good idea, but if they must exist....)

 

[Rabbitbait]

And it's exactly this debate which is proof of how the whole old alignment system sucked. 30 years down the track and we still can't agree what Lawful-Evil is.

Personally I never liked the straightjacket of alignments.

If a player asks you "I'm neutral-good, can I do that?", or "that guy is lawful-evil, so this is what he'll do..", it's time to throw the alignment system out of the window.

Alignment is not as important as character background, or the growth in personality that comes from adventuring. I've seen many idealistic, trusting 1st level characters become cynical, kill-first-and-ask-questions-later 12th level characters. I've also seen character who start from a bad background, have an epiphany partway through the game and redeem themselves.

This would not be so easy if they had started off with an alignment that they felt they had to adhere to.