I miss CG

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

As someone else stated, not to Godwin the thread, but I'd say Nazi Germany is pretty damn lawful, pretty damn evil, and incredibly scary.

That's the big problem with saying "OK, there's NO MORE LAWFUL EVIL EVER NEIN NO MORE AT ALL." Because all it takes is *one* example and suddenly you have to make excuses. And making excuses means you messed up.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

My three favorite alignments have gone away: LN, LE, and CG.

/sigh.

Hopefully the way alignments read will make up for this loss.

 

[Krensky]

Gah...

This thread is pretty much a text book case of why moral philosophy generally tries to avoid the words good and evil like the plague.

If whoever wrote the original alignment system simply called it moral/amoral/immoral it would have prevented all sorts of arguments and whining over what good and evil really mean. Of course it would have led to generations of gamers whining and butchering moral philosophy directly rather then indirectly so it'd probably be a wash.

The other axis doesn't have handy phrases, since what in practice and fluff it's talking about isn't ethics but philosophy of law. So to better name it you'd want something like positivist/interpertivist/naturalist. Sadly though, as accurate as that is I think they're bad choices, I just can't think of what would be better. Legalist/pragmatist/autonomist sounds better, kinda.

Ethics is tricker because they're inherently tied to setting, but the honor system in Oriental Adventures/Unearthed Arcana is a workable mechanical system for it if a DM feels a need for it.

However this is all properly in the roleplaying and world building part of the game. Although for some games it would be appropriate to allow those choices (which mechanically should be as meaningful as hair color or handedness or complexion) to have an indirect mechanical through a reputation system. However, the classification system is really more meaningful for groups of actors rather then for an individual moral actor. Not to mention that D&D is really not the game to drag moral, ethical, and legal philosophy into. I'm sure there's some Indy Forge game out there aimed at philosophy majors that no one's ever heard of that handles it better. Or maybe not, since most of the ones I knew in college would rather beat each other over the head with the verbal equivalent of half bricks until only one remained.

Getting back to the issue of the new alignment system... Fundamentally ever since they were introduced alignment acted as a targeting marker. That's all it ever really did mechanically. Well, and it gave the DM a way to penalize a player whose character deviated from or grew away from the alignment they picked first thing and gave people an excuse to be jerks. So the real question isn't where did the four alignments go, but why did LG and CE stay?

On the face of it, targeting good or evil seems more central to the game since twice as many things will be effected by Protection from [Moral Alignment] as will be by Protection from ['Ethical' Alignment]. Especially since the 'ethical' targeting now means the same thing as the moral one. Based on what we've seen, only the good and evil tags are significant, so why not just call alignment good. unaligned, and evil? And (since I haven't been paying that much attention) if we know that good and evil no longer function as targeting variables for the magic system, why keep alignment at all?

 

[Krensky]

As someone else stated, not to Godwin the thread, but I'd say Nazi Germany is pretty damn lawful, pretty damn evil, and incredibly scary.

That's the big problem with saying "OK, there's NO MORE LAWFUL EVIL EVER NEIN NO MORE AT ALL." Because all it takes is *one* example and suddenly you have to make excuses. And making excuses means you messed up.

Don't worry, Godwin's only invoked when an argument devolves to someone calling the other position nazis, fascist, etc.

Oh, it also doesn't work if you try and trigger it just to end the discussion.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'm here to Godwin this hyar thread.... Everyone's Nazis and they just don't realize it yet.


Now that you've been Godwinned let's at least be reasonable. 4e alignment is different, given that everything in 4e is different this isn't unexpected. Some of us like it, some don't. Toss the coin again. But I see a lot of hate on for a system that I always liked. Alignment, especially that it had tangible mechanical features, was one of the things that separated D&D from any number of other RPGs.

Old alignment was more than just a scope for relativistic wailing about various ethical codes. Alignment was a way of showing that relativism didn't exist in D&D. Good wasn't just something that you claimed you were, it was a real objective force of the cosmos and a characters position on it was also choosing sides in an eternal metaphysical battle. You couldn't just say, "but yes I'm Good." Barring magical intervention a cleric or paladin could actually examine you and tell whether your soul resonated with the energy's of the alignment you claimed to be on the side of.

Honestly from the explanations of alignment I'm seeing here most people are so versed in relativism that they don't get just how truly Olde School the old 9 point alignment is. It's a totally non-relativist system. Thoughts, feelings, or justifications are meaningless to it, as are the mores of societies. It's all about the act itself, very Kantian in a way, and approaching it from a utilitarian viewpoint as many are is guaranteed to scramble it up because it denies utilitarianism.

Certain things are in and of themselves aligned with a particular metaphysical force (Good, Evil, Law, Chaos & Neutrality). Individual perception is meaningless to ultimate nature. And to further complicate things it draws the lines of what acts fall under what force in a way that doesn't match modern 1st world ethical structures. Notice all the the people pointing to neutrality and saying not caring whether others are hurt is evil? That presumes the act of harming something is evil in and of itself, a view that even now you only find in sheltered places.

Basically to understand alignment you have to toss moral relativism over one shoulder and take a metaphysical journey to a more Hammurabian view.

 

[Jack99]

Here is my take.

LG and CE are just descriptors of certain types.

Now that I have slept on it, this is the most likely solution. Basically we have 3 alignments now. Evil-Unaligned-Good. On top of that, Good and Evil each have a sub-alignment, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil respectively. So in short, that means that LN-N-CN has been lumped together into Unaligned, LE-NE is now Evil, and NG-CG is now Good. Seems fair enough. I always found those the hardest to distinguish.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

*stop hitting yourself* *stop hitting yourself*

My 9th grade gym class was sweet, I could sit down in the corner and read a book if I wanted to so long as I got dressed, and nobody would give me flack for it.

But anyway, the Bully is a form of Law and Order. A law that benefits only a few people and an order that is enforced by brute force. True freedom implies nobody is there to force you to do anything, even if it is for your own good.

 

[Larrin]

True freedom implies nobody is there to force you to do anything, even if it is for your own good.

...I'm pretty sure this has never happened in the real world, and the closest places to this are in pretty rough shape. This definition of freedom leads to a large breakdown of social infrastructure. If no one can "force" you not to steal, cheat, etc, then you can, and people will, and so since you can't force your neighbor not to steal from you, you either have to steal it back, fend him off, or let him prey upon you. None of these choices lead to a good situation.

Sure its nice to think that nobody forcing you to do things means no substance restictions, marriage limitations, get a job/haircut, or whatever you personal 'freedom' cause is, but the absolute removal of it opens a very ugly box.

True freedom, in my book, is when a person is free of their own selfish desires and willingly do what is best for others and the community. This is even more of a dream, but its a good goal none the less.

 

[Byronic]

The X.Neutral alignments in 3.x can also be good for completely amoral races (races that don't judge things by good or evil, possible the Ealdrin race).

Having said that I shall simply keep the old alignment system because the new one just isn't descriptive enough. Even when comparing amoral races together some might be Lawful or Chaotic. And then continue to ignore the whole thing anyway since it doesn't matter in the new system.

 

[Leatherhead]

...I'm pretty sure this has never happened in the real world, and the closest places to this are in pretty rough shape. This definition of freedom leads to a large breakdown of social infrastructure. If no one can "force" you not to steal, cheat, etc, then you can, and people will, and so since you can't force your neighbor not to steal from you, you either have to steal it back, fend him off, or let him prey upon you. None of these choices lead to a good situation.

Sure its nice to think that nobody forcing you to do things means no substance restictions, marriage limitations, get a job/haircut, or whatever you personal 'freedom' cause is, but the absolute removal of it opens a very ugly box.

I am fully aware that humans cannot experience true freedom (at least not as I call it) because humans cannot function without some sort of boundaries.

See this point however:

But anyway, the Bully is a form of Law and Order. A law that benefits only a few people and an order that is enforced by brute force.

That would apply in such a "dog eat dog" situation as you described. In fact any sort of order where rules (such as ownership) are enforced isn't freedom. However by giving people a sufficiently large sized "sandbox", you can give them the illusion of freedom.