D&D 4E No evil gods in 4e?

[Hussar]

If the intent of the byzantine plot is to destroy society, how could that possibly be lawful?
/snip.

Where did I say that the plot's goal was to destroy society?

However, be that as it may, if the character lays complex, far reaching plans, with backups and double blinds and whatnot, that's not chaotic. That's lawful.

Again, and this is the point I was trying to make, what's the point of having alignments if opposite descriptors can describe the same activity?

Actually, Mal, you illustrate my point exactly. I look at Malcanthet - scheming, coniving, laying far reaching plans, and think Lawful. You look at the same thing and think Chaotic. The problem is, neither of us is likely wrong, just coming at it from different perspectives. And, this is the problem with most of the alignment discussions. The descriptors, the 9 point alignment system, is so broad and vague, that it becomes extremely difficult to use.

Thus, in Fiendish Codex II, we have devils driven by rage and destruction. Huh? Or we have demons like Grazz't or Malcanthet that are CE. Double Huh?

By making broader, more distinct definitions, the descriptors become better at describing.

 

[pemerton]

Again, and this is the point I was trying to make, what's the point of having alignments if opposite descriptors can describe the same activity?

QFT.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I always look at the motivation, not the methods. What are you fighting for?

That's why whether you are a rampaging psychopaths or deranged schemer trying to destroy society, you are chaotic evil in both case. It's not the means, it's the end.

That's also why I only consider chaotic good and lawful evil to be non-sense (And lo and behold, they have disappeared in 4e!). You can'tt fight both order and evil at the same time. What happens when the order is just? And you can't be both lawful and evil at the same time. What happens when your aims conflict with those of the collectivity? If you twisted laws to your advantage, how lawful were you? If you put the welfare of the collectivity above your own, how evil are you?

Anything else, I found easy to adjudicate by simply asking myself what was the ultimate objective of the character. Boom, there was his alignment.

I find that it gets confusing when you consider the methods. People would think ; this guys has a code of honour? He must be lawful! But wait, he's an anarchist...

What makes more sense, a lawful character wanting to destroy order or a chaotic one who happens to have a code of honour? I say the later is much more coherant.

I'm going to tentatively say that 4e interpretations of alignement is similar to mine but we'll see.

 

[Hussar]

I always look at the motivation, not the methods. What are you fighting for?

And that's perfectly fair. But, again, that's not what the rules say. Motivationally based alignment went out in 2e. Never mind that it opens a HUGE bag of worms in trying to define alignments when good and evil depend on who's doing the looking.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Just PLOTTING things doesn't make you lawful. Lawful != organized. You can be chaotic evil and still make your bed when you wake up in the morning.

 

[Hussar]

Just PLOTTING things doesn't make you lawful. Lawful != organized. You can be chaotic evil and still make your bed when you wake up in the morning.

From the SRD:

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Bolded the important bits.

and:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her.

So, LN, the epitome of lawfulness makes order paramount. While CN:

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.

So, yeah, lawful = orderly and chaotic != orderly.

But, again, you're simply illustrating my point. If opposite descriptors can describe the same behavior, then those descriptors have no value.