The Final Preview - Alignment (Is this really the first thread?)

[Serendipity]

So.................they just rehashed the alignment system from 1e WFRP? Eh. Okay.
Pretty much taking this to mean "we're ditching it, but we can't quite bring ourselves to do it, so.....here's this."

 

[pemerton]

Good is "freedom and kindness" while LG is "civilization and order". So, "freedom and kindness" are a baseline "good" and valuing "civilization and order" is a special case? Does that mean that Good is more good than LG? The opposite? Separate but equal? That last one seems to be the case and is an issue because it begs the question, "If both are equally 'good', why does one warrant a modifier and the other doesn't?" When the "non-standard", orderly good includes a preference for working within the system for a positive change, about the only thing that's left for unmodified good is open rebellion and revolt.

I don't think that the two alignments have to be mutually exclusive with respect to the sorts of behaviours (whether personal or political) that might fit under them, because it is not one's behaviour that brings one under an alignment. Rather, it is one's expressed allegiance to an ideal.

I think that is an odd thing to say. Of course the 4E alignment is a descriptor for innate personality.

<snip>

Alignment has always been a rough descriptor that tries to summarize how a character behaves and what they think.

<snip>

Regardless, if you don't interpret alignment as some personality attribute innate to characters, then I don't see how it is relevant at all. Unless a "good" character is actually a good person, then you might as well declare their alignment as "self-proclaimed good", and the whole thing is meaningless.

I don't agree at all. Consider an analogy to actual teams in real-world moral debate: liberal, conservative and social democrat parties in 19th century and pre-wwII 20th century European politics.

These labels "liberal", "conservative", "social democrat" are not personality descriptors. They are team labels. But the teams are not arbitrary (and so are unlike modern sporting teams) - they are individuated by their commitments to particular sets of ideals. And naturally, only those who share those ideals will join the team.

So it is in 4e - only good people will join the Good team, only evil people will join the Evil team, etc. It doesn't therefore follow that the labels are personality descriptors. They describe the ideals of a collective which only certain individuals will join.

The difference between LG and Good is fairly easy to see really. LG societies would be closer to say, feudal societies where you have lots of rules that allow the society to function. Good societies would be tribal societies, where you can advance through your own personal skills.

I'm not sure that it's helpful to try to talk about the alignment of a society in 4e terms. As far as I can tell, alignment is used to identify bundles of moral ideals that are salient for a game of heroic fantasy (in much the same way that the pre-WW II political labels identify bundles of political ideals that are salient in a post-enlightenment, pre-Keynsian society). I'm not sure that they can be used with much profit for sociological purposes.

 

[pawsplay]

It looks to me that they weaseled so much that Lawful Good and Good are actually the same thing now, and the main difference between Evil and Chaotic Evil is stylistic. Seriously, if LG means opposers of tyranny, what is left?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Just about the only change I don't like about the new edition. I can Rolling NG and CG together then doing the same to NE and LE might be a nice way to make things simple for the 12 year olds. I get that WOTC wants to make the game more accessible and understanding the old Alignment system is a bit of a stumbling block for newbies.

Making blanket statements being offensive to people who have a different view to you is not OK. People are not infantile for preferring different things to you.

Please don't do it again.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Well, here's a bit I posted on rpg.net (and, originally, in a thread on a local FLGS board about the new AL system) which states part of the issues with AL. A bit modified from the original format, mainly due to audience.

I like the new AL system. Reminds me a lot of the BECMI D&D AL system, and it really seems easier to deal with/explain than the AD&D ninefold AL system, esp. for new players.

One of the key things of the D&D setting (and the stuff that inspired it) is the actual existence of a force of Good and a force of Evil (with a capital G and E, respectively). Not any different from the Light Side/Dark Side aspects of the Force, the Order and Chaos dynamic of the Elric/Eternal Champion stories, and a fair number of pop culture stuff today (comics, TV shows, etc.).

I think the thing that really improves Alignment for 4th ed. D&D is changing Neutral to Unaligned. Neutral carried a lot of connotations, both from previous interpretations of that alignment, as well as the whole multi-part good vs. evil & law vs. chaos concept thrown in. Neutral has had, for too long, the "balance of the extremes" thing associated with it, which has made it more of a pain than anything.

It's kinda closer to Palladium's alignment system now, though I'd argue it's even simpler than that, now (With Principled = Lawful Good, Scrupulous = Good, Unprincipled & Anarchist combined = Unaligned, Aberrant & Miscreant combined = Evil, and Diabolic = Chaotic Evil), and much closer to the basic Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic structure of original D&D (where Lawful ≈ Good, and Chaotic ≈ Evil). And, of course, it's very reminiscent of the original Warhammer Fantasy RPG structure of Law-Good-Neutral-Evil-Chaos.

Now, I think it's a better step than the ninefold alignment system (which I could defend & have defended before). The key thing that is necessary to make it work is a set-in-stone foundation & definition of Good and Evil (and to a greater extent, Lawful Good & Chaotic Evil), and what's expected of it. Simple yet absolute definites completely free of the utterly flawed cultural myopia typical of all mere mortals (what's truly Good is truly Good and what's truly Evil is truly Evil, despite what any cultural viewpoints might say/claim/demand to the contrary).

I wonder how tied in alignment is to the game system now, though: I'm starting to think that it may be much more mechanically easier to omit it from a D&D game now than it ever has been before (esp. with how spells, special abilities, & the like have worked). It'd simply be to have everyone be Unaligned & go from there. Perhaps the ridiculously extremely rare NPC or creature would qualify as (Lawful) Good or (Chaotic) Evil, but that'd be the exception (to prove a point, perhaps) rather than the rule.

As a quote in the article summed up, "Alignment means making an effort." I think that I'll have (almost) all PCs start off as Unaligned, and go from there. Taking on an Alignment will become a player responsibility—if they want to be Good, they better act in a Good manner. If they consistently act in an Evil manner, then that'll catch up with them, too. I think the 2 extremes (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil) may be the hardest to play, because LG will require a lot of effort on the player's part to stay on path, while CE will require a lot of effort to keep from being totally ostracized and annihilated.

I think that playing an Unaligned character as a hero works with this simple mindset: do well by doing good. It's good business to act like a hero in the hero business. Unaligned hereoes would go with this mindset (and do well); Good heroes would focus more on doing good & not be as concerned about doing well as a result; Lawful Good heroes would focus on not only doing Good, but promoting a system that genuinely perpetuates good for all.

All in all, I think it's better than non-Evil Chaotic PCs doing things that are non-Good or almost Evil and justifying it by saying they're Chaotic.


Now, as for Mordenkainen becoming Unaligned from Neutral (and how examples of LN & CN don't seem right going Unaligned), the Unaligned description states that such characters could be focused on something else that they see as more important: the balance between Good & Evil, a system of Honor, a system of Law, abolishment of law & structure to promote a natural anarchy, etc. All of these characters would work as Unaligned since:

• Their actions aren't really Good or Evil, but they're "right" according to their worldview.
• Their focus on their worldview and promoting it is rather selfish, though they "believe" its (ultimately) benevolent.
• Their worldview is based on a flawed subjective morality (something from a culture, spiritual or secular belief system, etc.) which leads them to do "good" for what their worldview sees as "right" and destroy what their worldview sees as "wrong" or "evil."

This can apply to a broad spectrum of things: a conquerer who believes conquering lands & placing under his rule will uplift the conquered (ala ancient Rome); a spiritual adept who believes converting (or destroying) the non-believers to his faith will provide them with salvation (too many real-world examples to count & not proper to elaborate on in this forum); a frontier warrior out to slaughter all & any orcs because they are inherently irredeemable vicious savages that threaten the safety of civilized peoples; etc. They do things which they believe is "right," but actually can do genuinely Good or Evil deeds (in the grand scheme of things), though all of those Good and Evil deeds, per the mindset of that Unaligned character, are seen as "right."

In previous editions of D&D, two Lawful Neutral characters could easily be enemies due to embracing different sets of Laws. They may have respect for each other, but their Law is the right law, while the other's Law is the flawed law. But, though this works conceptually, it's a big pain because it's focused on local Law; how would this work with the "cosmic" concept of Law (with a capital L) typical of Nirvana/Mechanus? Perhaps the LN outsiders would see both LN mortals as flawed, because they embrace mortal Law instead of divine, pure Law.

This can work easily under Unaligned, because it still works just fine along the cosmic axis of Good and Evil (all falling into the shades of grey area). Conflict can still occur, but ultimately, no one's more right than the other (unless it involves the cosmic absolutes of Good and Evil somehow).

Just my $0.02 on it all.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't agree at all. Consider an analogy to actual teams in real-world moral debate: liberal, conservative and social democrat parties in 19th century and pre-wwII 20th century European politics.

These labels "liberal", "conservative", "social democrat" are not personality descriptors. They are team labels. But the teams are not arbitrary (and so are unlike modern sporting teams) - they are individuated by their commitments to particular sets of ideals. And naturally, only those who share those ideals will join the team.

So it is in 4e - only good people will join the Good team, only evil people will join the Evil team, etc. It doesn't therefore follow that the labels are personality descriptors. They describe the ideals of a collective which only certain individuals will join.

I don't think your political analogy is applicable at all.

Good and evil are not ideals. At no point will a character make a conscious decision about being unaligned, good, or lawful good, let alone evil or chaotic evil (a player might, but a character won't). If such a decision is made, it will not be based on some kind of detailed examination of equivalent choices.

An unaligned character and a lawful good character may share the same ideals. They might both value peace, stability, and the happiness of those they care about. They may both want to see the same kind of world. In fact, an evil character may want the same things. The main difference between them is that they have different principles they hold themselves to in trying to achieve that ideal. A lawful good character will hold himself to a higher moral standard than an unaligned character, even if they share the same basic morals. An evil character may have the same morals as the other two, but may end up abandoning them for the sake of an ideal (and may admit that he is wrong, but not care). These kinds of differences are entirely that of personality, not anything else, and are certainly not associated with any particular ideals or "teams".

The failing of the team analogy is even more problematic when you consider that characters of the same alignment may have different ideals and may conflict with each other. An evil man may use atrocious methods in order slaughter a whole tribe of evil goblins, so that a good man could become a righteous king. Ultimately, alignment is about the method rather than the goal, and teams are built around shared goals, while methods are a product of personalities.

 

[lutecius]

I don't think your political analogy is applicable at all.

Good and evil are not ideals. At no point will a character make a conscious decision about being unaligned, good, or lawful good, let alone evil or chaotic evil (a player might, but a character won't).
[...]
The failing of the team analogy is even more problematic when you consider that characters of the same alignment may have different ideals and may conflict with each other. An evil man may use atrocious methods in order slaughter a whole tribe of evil goblins, so that a good man could become a righteous king. Ultimately, alignment is about the method rather than the goal, and teams are built around shared goals, while methods are a product of personalities.

Good points. I think the problem is that, despite the "alignment vs personality" insert, they haven't really decided whether aligmnent was about personal ways or a "cosmic team" thing.

It might work for Lawful Good, but Evil and Chaotic Evil in particular, seem antithetical to "alignment teams". The descriptions look more like different methods to get what you want than common goals or ideals.
However the Archons in the MM are Chaotic Evil, supposedly because they serve the forces of Chaos (demons and primordials) which is inconsistent with the PHB definition.
reposting an earlier comment to illustrate:

how do "organized extraplanar monsters" like the archons, mostly used as "single-minded", "militaristic" servants and guardians who "don’t mind waiting centuries for interlopers to come along" fit "each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power"

 

[pemerton]

Good and evil are not ideals.

Well, LG and G look like they're defined in terms of ideals: "civilisation and order", "freedom and kindness".

Evil is more problematic, I agree. But given the remark that "alignment is about effort" I assume that all those who are Evil actually commit themselves to tyranny and hatred (eg by worshipping or serving an Evil god). Likewise Chatoic Evil.

The failing of the team analogy is even more problematic when you consider that characters of the same alignment may have different ideals and may conflict with each other.

Well, I don't agree with this - that is, I maintain that they can't conflict on the key ideals that define the alignment. Of course they may conflict on other ideals (just as some social democrats may be environmentalists and others not - the ideal of classical social democracy is neutral as to environmentalist goals).

Ultimately, alignment is about the method rather than the goal, and teams are built around shared goals, while methods are a product of personalities.

Well, the descriptions of G and LG in the extract beging by talking about what it is that such characters respect - which can be about ideals as much as about method (ie certain methods are typically used by the good not because such methods are good in themselves, but because they are the only methods that realise the key values of goodness, such as freedom, kindness etc).

The descriptor of CE also begins with ideals ("Each believes he or she is the only being that matters"). Only Evil begins its definition by reference to methods ("perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want . . . use rules and order to maximize personal gain"). Given that we have been expressly told that we're dealing with teams, it seems incumbent upon us to look for a reading of this that is consistent with the team idea. Maybe what it means is that the Evil are the team which expressly renounce as morally binding ordinary moral precepts - so their ideal is the absence of any ideals.

An unaligned character and a lawful good character may share the same ideals.

<snip>

The main difference between them is that they have different principles they hold themselves to in trying to achieve that ideal.

This is true. But sharing certain ideals is simply a necessary condition of joining the team. It is not a sufficient condition.

An evil character may have the same morals as the other two

Well, I think that this is expressly excluded by the definition of evil as being perfectly willing to exploit others. I think that this is intended to convey an embracing of selfishness that those who share the ideals of good (even the unaligned who share those ideals) repudiate.

This would also answer the question on the RPG.net thread cited upthread, of the difference between Evil and Unaligned. The Evil have expressly repudiated the ideals of good. The unaligned typically have not - but nor have they signed onto the membership list of Team Good.

An evil man may use atrocious methods in order slaughter a whole tribe of evil goblins, so that a good man could become a righteous king.

First, while this may be true when using "good" and "evil" in their ordinary senses, I'm not sure that it can be true in 4e if we are using "good" and "evil" as alignment descriptors. It may be that the "evil man" you've described is, in 4e terms, unaligned.

At no point will a character make a conscious decision about being unaligned, good, or lawful good, let alone evil or chaotic evil (a player might, but a character won't). If such a decision is made, it will not be based on some kind of detailed examination of equivalent choices.

Well, the extract says that "If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles". Can dedication occur without making a choice? It seems to me to imply a choice or something similar - one doesn't simply stumble unintentionally into an orientation of dedication.

 

[Zogmo]

...and will never be mentioned again after character creation. This kind of alignment is even less valuable than the hair colour which can at least be seen in game.

Well, in the campaign my friends and I run the Law and Chaos axis is of massive importance in the universe. This is probably because we all are heavily influenced by Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books.

We are switching to 4e and will be using it there too.

 

[Zogmo]

I've always felt that alignment WORKS as a roleplaying tool because experienced players KNOW HOW TO USE alignment to roleplay well and inexperienced players didn't understand the system.

There, I fixed it for you.