I miss CG

[muffin_of_chaos]

Pretty sure WotC is changing alignments to focus more on how the types of actions characters take rather than what they are.

I can see Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good characters, but not Lawfully Evil actions or Chaotically Good actions.

For good action, you can either do something because you think it's right (Good), or because someone (a law perhaps) tells you that it's right (Lawful Good). You can't chaotically cause good because goodness requires will.
For evil action, you can either do something because you want to help yourself somehow (Evil), or because you think that evil is good in and of itself (Chaotic Evil). I've never heard of a law specifically designed to promote evil (maybe in Hell...but probably not). Slavery for instance isn't designed to be evil, even if it is. Therefore you don't follow the law in the efforts of supporting evil, but because it aligns with an evil mind.

For characters who don't care about Good or Evil, there's Unaligned actions; even purely chaotic actions or purely ordered actions, with no preference in regards to morality, don't really need to be differentiated. Knowing that a character prefers one type over another says a lot more about his/her mental state than ideals.

In other words, the old and new systems aren't mutually exclusive. The new one is just the more functional one, because it gets rid of certain assumptions that don't really apply to actual decision-making.
As an aside: I always thought that the idea behind Law and Chaos "warring" against each other was ridiculous. What motivation would there be? Ordered minds understand that Law can't exist without Chaos, and the essence of Chaos is mindless irrational action--it shouldn't care. Even templars of Law and Chaos only work if you give Law and Chaos some moral-based reason to oppose each other, and then you dip into Good vs. Evil.
Lawful Good and Lawful Evil ganging up against Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil. Uh-huh.

 

[Flobby]

I' not sure how they are defining the alignments but it makes a lot of sense to ax CG and LE. I mean what is the difference between CG and NG, and LE and NE? Isn't any good character going to want to respect freedom? I figure your either going to be a proponent of law and good, or of good - whether its lawful or not.
Evil means you look out for number one right? So one who is not all about chaos and slaughter (CE) will follow the law when it suits them, i.e. Evil.

LN does make sense though... someone who blindly follows law and duty regardless of any other moral consequences.

CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?

 

[med stud]

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."

Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".

Inquiring minds demand to know: What kind of medical student are or were you?!

 

[Family]

Heh, it's funny. I had a patient last week that was one of the more notorious criminals in Sweden. He has a pronounced antisocial personality disorder (that is more or less the same as being a psychopath). He used exactly your reasoning when he explained how he viewed his crimes, except for the part about "the man". He had, during the course of his "career" hurt a LOT of people who he considered "being caught in a crossfire".

I told you that in confidence.

 

[med stud]

Inquiring minds demand to know: What kind of medical student are or were you?!

Doctor (or physician if that's the right word). Right now I'm an intern in psychiatry.

 

[med stud]

I told you that in confidence.

You should learn to read the fine print

 

[skipdog172]

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).

I agree with these statements.

In my experience, all these aligments did was confuse players and make them think they needed to play a character in specific way.

I don't think a character having a certain alignment is necessary for the player to add as much depth to that character's personality as possible. If anything, I noticed players using their alignment as an excuse to do or not do something, when they really needed to be thinking more about their character, and how that character thinks, as opposed to what was written down on their character sheet. The players who tended to really play their character's personality well and really fleshed out the characters, often-times had contradicting alignments and really never payed much attention to them, some going as far as changing their alignment after playing the character for awhile.

The new system will be ok, and imo, having less is better than more. I don't want my players failing to flesh out their character because of an alignment written down on their sheet. I am sure it is not an issue with some players, but my group has always clung to their alignments to the point where it was often more of a hindrance than a help.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I' not sure how they are defining the alignments but it makes a lot of sense to ax CG and LE. I mean what is the difference between CG and NG, and LE and NE? Isn't any good character going to want to respect freedom? I figure your either going to be a proponent of law and good, or of good - whether its lawful or not.

Christ, for the upteenth time, Chaotic isn't "I HATE ALL LAWS ALL THE TIME. ANARCHY WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" Maybe Wizards axed the alignments because they need to dumb down their rules to appeal to players.

Chaotic Good is John Locke. The only time laws are neccisary is when they're used to protect our freedoms. That's it, that's the *only* time laws should exist.

Neutral Good teeters between lawful and chaotic. Some laws are neccisary, some aren't. Sometimes it's important to follow the law, sometimes it isn't.

Evil means you look out for number one right? So one who is not all about chaos and slaughter (CE) will follow the law when it suits them, i.e. Evil.

Again, LE is easy to show in existance, and all it takes is *one* example and you can no longer say "It doesn't exist." There's been PLENTY of "evil regimes" or "evil empires" in the real world to prove that wrong.

LN does make sense though... someone who blindly follows law and duty regardless of any other moral consequences.

CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?

CN doesn't actively try to hurt people. They just try to get on with their lives, but have more or less a disrespect for the law. CN when it's not at its extreme is that hippy next door that grows his own weed and hates the man trying to bring him down, but doesn't actively go out onto the street and gun people down.

 

[Celebrim]

CN? What is that? What's the difference between CN and CE?

a) A chaotic neutral would only betray a friend if his life was at stake. But a chaotic evil doesn't really have friends. He has accomplises which he betrays the first time it seems profitable to do so.
b) A CN doesn't actively promote evil. He avoids doing acts of great evil (or great good) unless there is an immediate and essential need to do so. But a CE character believes evil is actually the best way and takes evil actions as his first choice.

Perhaps one of the easiest ways to see the difference is to not consider chaoticness for a moment and consider what universally separates good and evil.

c) Suppose you believe that something like torture has absolute moral value. In that case in your campaign, whether law or chaos, good people believe torture is always wrong, neutral people believe that torture is useful in extreme cases, and evil people believe torture is always right.
d) Likewise with regards to justice, good people will tend to believe something less than 'an eye for an eye' is the ideal (mercy forgiveness), neutral people will believe that 'an eye for an eye' is the ideal (equity), and evil people will tend to believe that something more than 'an eye for an eye' is ideal (retribution).
e) Chaotic good people will tend to say something like, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'* (active), CN's will tend to say something like 'Don't do unto others as you would not have done unto you.' (passive) or 'Harm no one. Do as you will.' (passive), and CE will tend to say, 'Seize the day. Life belongs to those strong enough to take it.' (active)
d) When observing an injustice, a good character will tend to want to correct it even at a cost to himself (active). A neutral character will tend to want to not get involved (passive). An evil character will typically want to take part in it (active).

* Before someone wants to get into an argument over that which will get overly religious, let me point out that a typical criticism of that axiom is that it is impossible for an external observer without knowing the person to know whether they are following 'the golden rule' because the mandate 'as you would have done' is inherently personal. It is thus in D&D terms a chaotic good code of honor. I am not however making the statement that the person who famously made that statement was 'chaotic good' or any other claim about that person.