Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4267870" data-attributes="member: 42582">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.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).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.This is true. But sharing certain ideals is simply a necessary condition of joining the team. It is not a sufficient condition.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification