I miss CG

[Family]

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.

I say that alignment is okay for NPCs but for PCs their motivation is more important to the role playing. Not only is it more maluable but it's also more immediate.

 

[Celebrim]

No, it's Optimus Prime.

It's Captain America.

It's Superman.

The portrayal of LG as a Jerkface Knight? Those guys were LN.

I'd just like to point out that from the perspective of a CN character, there is little to no fundamental difference between any of the lawful alignments. All of them as far as a chaotic neutral character is likely to be concerned are dangerous annoying busybodies that will try to force thier beliefs on you. If you are chaotic neutral, one of the worst sins one can practice is trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Indeed, even believing that someone else ought to share your beliefs is seen by the CN as dangerous, misguided, and coersive. To the CN, 'fanaticism' is the source of the worlds evil. The CN believes that anyone who is subjecting his will and his identity to an idea, external code, or group is dangerous, irrational, and potentially violent.

Since beliefs that are based described in D&D terms as 'chaotic neutral' are widely accepted in some circles, it wouldn't be surprising to hear people commenting on the D&D alignment system from a CN bias.

I mean, IIRL I don't even believe 'law' or 'chaos' exist where as I take 'good' and 'evil' to be pointers to some Platonism address space of absolute reality. Likewise, I don't believe IIRL that there is actual neutral ground between 'good' and 'evil' just varying shades of increasing rightness and increasing wrongness and that neutrality is wholly staked out in that area of increasing wrongness. But these are my philosophical biases based on what I believe, and what I believe doesn't describe a nine bucket system at all. Nonetheless, I can see that various philosophies can be interestingly categorized by the D&D system and that other people can hold these beliefs in intellectually rigorous ways. So I try my best to not let my biases interfere with the classification scheme. If I did, it would create a scheme in which there was an alignment you were clearly 'supposed' to have, and beliefs that you were clearly supposed to hold and that would interfere with the sort of moral exploration a more open system allows.

 

[Counterspin]

Stormbringer -I didn't say the alignment rules were hidden, or that they were too short. I said they were poorly written. And since alignment is one of the constant sources of argumentation about the 3.5 rules, I feel confident in that assertion. Clarity is a purely pragmatic thing, and a lot of people who read the alignment rules got vastly differing ideas of what actions fall where along the two axes. Thus it is poorly written.

 

[ZetaStriker]

No, it's Optimus Prime.

It's Captain America.

It's Superman.

The portrayal of LG as a Jerkface Knight? Those guys were LN.

Captain America is NG, as proven by his willingness to rebel during the Civil War.

"He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.."

NG are helpers, which fits a hero just as well as anything the LG description has to say, but although there's some crossover, the second half of the NG description clearly shows where he fits in.

Other than that, all examples, including the bossy knight, are all Lawful Good to a T.

"She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

Being vocal about their beliefs and punishing those who go against them is in the nature of Lawful Good characters, not Neutral Good. They just wont go against their code when divvying out said justice, and depending on the region, person, organization and whatever else might influence someone's perceptions, there's a lot that could alter their moral code beyond "I don't like people who kick kittens".

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I don't think that Nazis, Amoral Businessmen and Corrupt Lawyers qualify as Lawful Evil. They are more like Organized Evil.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Stormbringer -I didn't say the alignment rules were hidden, or that they were too short. I said they were poorly written. And since alignment is one of the constant sources of argumentation about the 3.5 rules, I feel confident in that assertion. Clarity is a purely pragmatic thing, and a lot of people who read the alignment rules got vastly differing ideas of what actions fall where along the two axes. Thus it is poorly written.

As I demonstrated, it was not poorly written. I can name literally thousands of writings that are the constant source of argumentation on any number of topics. That has nothing to do with them being poorly written.

What a lot of people reading the alignment rules seem to have a problem with is that they didn't really take half the effort to understand them as they did to understand 'Wisdom', which is a limitation on your character, whereas 'Alignment' is a limitation on the player, and that became less acceptable over the years. Despite the fact that 'Wisdom: 16' and 'Chaotic Good' are exactly equal in describing the aspects of a character to which they are related.

 

[Celebrim]

Captain America is NG, as proven by his willingness to rebel during the Civil War.

a) I don't think you can take a willingness to rebel as proof in and of itself of a non-lawful identity. America's most famous rebel, Robert E. Lee, is an example of a lawful minded individual who is forced to rebel because of his allegiances ultimately bring him into conflict with lawful authority - which proves not to hold his highest allegiance. It's not that you are loyal to lawful authority which determines whether you are lawful, but whether you are loyal to an externally recognized code.
b) Captain America's alignment has evolved over the years in responce to his writers evolving attitude toward America itself. He's also been portrayed in different ways in different alternate universes.
c) Ok, despite all that, I grant you that Cap' is NG in most incarnations.

 

[gribble]

So, not to put too fine a point on it... I can understand where the 4e alignments come from... because I've been there and I've done that. It worked like a charm

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think:

LG = White
G = Green
U = Blue
E = Black
CE = Red

And before the enivitable flames start, no I'm not a magic player, and yes, I realise some of those probably aren't "perfect fits" (depending on how drastically 4e has changed the alignments of course).

It was just something that jumped out at me...

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Look at post #46.
You're welcome.

Wrong one.
Read #81, and argue with it, please, it's boring if it's just accepted by everyone.

Thank you.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...We need to check the full description of each alignment...

I suspect that whatever book it is that will cover gnomes will also have a section covering an expansion of the alignment system.