I miss CG

[FourthBear]

Nine Alignments gave DnD depth beyond killing things and taking their stuff. LG-G-U-E-CE is just dull, it infuses DnD with all the worst aspects of a children's cartoon serial.

The alignment system never had anything to do with giving D&D depth beyond killing things. Most role playing games do just fine without an alignment system and many of them are far less associated with killing things and taking their stuff than D&D. It's the desire of players, DMs and writers to tell stories and engage in genre emulation that is most responsible for bringing depth to most D&D games. And the alignment system has never been necessary for that. No one needs any alignment system to play a role, decide if a character is played consistently or know if there are consequences to actions. Prior to AD&D, there was an even simpler three axis L-N-C system. I do not recall that the games with that system were any less in depth than those in AD&D. I do not think there is any relationship between the number of alignment axes and the depth of any version of D&D. Let me add my voice to those who wish that the alignment system had been entirely removed (preferably by time travel from all previous editions, too).

 

[The Shadow]

I suspect we'll find that Lawful Good is not Good++, and ditto for Chaotic Evil. I suspect it'll be a twisty line instead of a wheel. And I don't think that's a bad thing. (I could do without alignment entirely, but this'll do.)

Evil may be more *scary* if it's more organized, but that's because it's *less* evil, believe it or not. There is no such thing as "pure evil"; evil is a corrupted good, which is self-defeating. In anything with mixed good and evil elements, all the effectiveness comes from the good parts.

What I'm hoping is that Lawful is defined not as "organized" or "following a code" but "upholding society's (good, or at least indifferent) rules over one's own". As someone else said, there really isn't much of a difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good in practice.

Whereas there likewise isn't much of a difference between Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil in practice. Both are simply out for the Main Chance. It's not like supposedly "Lawful Evil" individuals are that way out of principle! They've just found an effective way of getting what they want. If they follow a malignant code or law out of principle, not because it furthers their personal ends, they're probably unaligned.

"Chaotic Evil" would presumably be for beings that go out of their way to do harm, even when it doesn't benefit them personally in any tangible way and may even harm them too. (Humans who are consistently like that are, thankfully, quite rare.) This doesn't make them "more evil than Evil" necessarily, just Evil and stupid.

Society is not the only defintion of law/chaos. There are personal codes as well one holds themselves up to. An Assassin who kills for money (or pleasure) but has a personal code that he will never kill children or women. Then there is Dexter... A serial killer who works as a Crime Scene Investigator and quenches is thrist for blood by killing just the bad people/criminals, not the innocent people.

That's not "Lawful Evil". That's just Evil that doesn't want to admit it.

A few scruples to salve one's conscience do not an ethical axis make.

People Equating "Chaos" with "Freedom" was probably the reason CG was axed.

Freedom is up held by order. Chaos is your 9th grade gym class for the rest of your life.

Quoted, as they say, for truth.

 

[JoeCrow]

In all likelyhood, I'll probably end up just using the Allegiance system from d20 Modern. Just like I started doing with 3e, as soon as Modern came out. It just works better for me and my crew.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Not going to read this whole thread. But I just wanted to say that alignment should've been ditched outright. That's really the best (the only?) way to get an open spectrum of alignments.

 

[Lizard]

Whence came the idea CN was Malkavian?

CN is "I'm out for myself. I don't really like hurting people and don't go out of my way to do it, but if someone is caught in the crossfire...whatever. Sucks to be them, I guess. Laws and rules for suckers. Tradition is the man keeping you down. Just don't get between me and what I want, and we'll all get along fine."

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Here is my take.

LG and CE are just descriptors of certain types.

 

[The Shadow]

CN is "I'm out for myself. I don't really like hurting people and don't go out of my way to do it, but if someone is caught in the crossfire...whatever. Sucks to be them, I guess. Laws and rules for suckers. Tradition is the man keeping you down. Just don't get between me and what I want, and we'll all get along fine."

Lizard... I read that little vignette and I think, "That's an almost perfect description of evil."

I don't insist on the sentence about tradition, and of course some evil people do enjoy hurting others. But evil isn't pure self-centeredness plus sadism; in its essence it simply *is* pure self-centeredness, without any regard for others.

It's not liking hurting others that makes someone evil. It's being willing to hurt others to satisfy their desires that does that.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Whence came the idea CN was Malkavian?

A) Malkavians have a bad rap. Silver Fangs also have derangements.

B) I dunno it's kinda been that way since 1e.

 

[Lizard]

It's not liking hurting others that makes someone evil. It's being willing to hurt others to satisfy their desires that does that.

How about not caring if others get hurt as a side effect, if you're not hurting them yourself?

To my mind, "Evil" is the deliberate infliction of harm, "Good" is deliberate acts of aid, and "Neutral" is not giving a damn either way. The guy who justifies his actions on the grounds that "I'm not hurting anyone", with the implication, however weak, that if he was he'd stop, is the classic neutral. ("Sure, I'm shoplifting from work, but so what? They've got insurance, and besides, they're not paying me enough, so it's only fair. Would I mug someone on the street? Heck no, what do you take me for?")

 

[The Shadow]

How about not caring if others get hurt as a side effect, if you're not hurting them yourself?

To my mind, "Evil" is the deliberate infliction of harm, "Good" is deliberate acts of aid, and "Neutral" is not giving a damn either way. The guy who justifies his actions on the grounds that "I'm not hurting anyone", with the implication, however weak, that if he was he'd stop, is the classic neutral. ("Sure, I'm shoplifting from work, but so what? They've got insurance, and besides, they're not paying me enough, so it's only fair. Would I mug someone on the street? Heck no, what do you take me for?")

Well, stealing office supplies isn't *very* evil, but I'd still call that an evil act. He himself may well be "unaligned" as a whole, of course - probably is. (But then, I would also ask - does he not mug people because it's wrong, or because he doesn't think the benefit outweighs the risk of getting caught?)

Doing what you want without regard for whether anyone gets hurt is evil in my book. Of course, hurting them yourself is a *further* evil. D&D's idea of "Neutrality" between good and evil can really only mean one of three things:

1) The absence of striking goodness or evil. Certainly there are huge numbers of people like this. It's what 4e calls "unaligned".

2) A whitewash job in which one can be evil without the name, so long as you don't do anything too egregious. This is often what it comes down to in practice, IMO. I've got no use for it.

3) An absurd, laughable idea of "balance" between goodness and evil. I don't see how any sane person can take it seriously. Desiring balance between Moorcockian Law and Chaos is quite sensible; desiring balance between moral good and moral evil is complete nonsense so far as I can see.