Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4267996" data-attributes="member: 32536">I question whether I would call "civilization and order" or "freedom and kindess" ideals in the main sense that I am concerned with. They are also pretty sloppy descriptors, actually. Attempts to create quick summary phrases like that have always bothered me, and their appearance in 4E is no different. If they are going to use a summary phrase, it should be the name of alignment. People already know what the words good and evil mean, after all.Anyways, I interpret the "alignment means making an effort" phrase differently than you do, and that phrase is one of the things that I really like about the new alignment scheme. The difference between LG and Unaligned is a matter of effort, not ideals. A character with an alignment is more committed to their ideals than someone without alignment. An unaligned character would not risk their own hide needlessly, but would support others in achieving an ideal if possible, a good character is willing to sacrifice their own well-being for an ideal, and an evil character is willing to cross the line and sacrifice the well-being of others for an ideal.Well, let me turn this around and look at an evil character, then. What are the "key ideals" of the evil alignment? How, in fact, do these ideals necessarily contradict some of the ideals of the good alignment. An evil person may want to create a perfect utopia of civilization and order where everyone is happy, but such a person would simply use foul means to do so and will likely create a distopia unintentionally. The ideal is the same as Lawful Good, and even the "team" may be the same as Lawful Good, but the alignment differs. Similarly, a difference in ideals can easily lead to two Lawful Good-aligned characters coming into conflict with each other. For example, democracy and absolute monarchy are innately at odds even, if the key figures in both are Lawful Good.The "team" analogy is flawed because it seems to presume that all "good-team" characters are allied against a unified "evil-team". Since good or evil characters are not necessarily allied together and may actually be in conflict with each other (and in fact most stories tend to be pretty boring without some confusion regarding this matter), the analogy is misleading.I am not 100% certain, but you might be asking me to accept circular reasoning here.Anyways, my whole point is that the alignment system works whether you use the team analogy or not, and that the team analogy has problematic implications in of itself. If the analogy does more harm than good, then it should be excised.So, a person who is "part of Team Evil" must specifically renounce ideals like "freedom and kindness" and actively pursue "anti-freedom and anti-kindness" for their own sake? Or rather, classic ideas like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a falsehood in D&D and every character with the Evil alignment must be a card-carrying villain who does evil because they have an obligation to being Evil?I am sorry, but I think the team concept is getting ridiculous. Any alignment system where "good vs. evil" is identical to "the Justice League vs. the Legion of Doom" is a logical result is a flawed alignment system. Since I want to completely avoid that situation, I can't accept your interpretation.I think any alignment system where "good" and "evil" have different definitions than common usage is whacked. If it does not work with common definitions, then it does not work.You do stumble into dedication and orientation if it is a matter of personality. Anyways, alignment is not about making "The Big Choice", it is made from countless small decisions across a lifetime. Either this is controlled by a person being innately good, or actively pursuing a good life (which is a particular personality trait and subset of this whole mess).Anyways, the point you seem to have unintentionally made is that, if you assume the team analogy is true, it leads to a cascade effect that leads to a number of particular outcomes ("the Super Friends vs. the Legion of Doom" and "good and evil don't mean what you think they mean"). Since I reject these outcomes entirely, all you have done is cement my position that the team analogy is bad and alignment is a personality descriptor that controls methods, not an active choice of a limited set of ideals.</blockquote>

Verification