Any one else notice the lack of entries for both chaotic good and lawful evil? Or straight up lawful and chaotic? Seems like a lot of stuff to leave out from an excerpt, being close to half the alignment spectrum.
Lawful Good: Lawful Good isn't just Good for Good's sake. Lawful is a modifier of Good. Finally, because the setting is centered around a 'safety in civilization' vs. 'danger in the world at large' theme, Lawful Good stands out as an alignment.
Good: Chaotic Good and Neutral Good are really just: Good for Good's sake. Let's make them Good.
Unaligned: A number of character attitudes, personalities and goals can go here. There was too much of a 'spectrum' as far as the neutral alignments. For example, a neutral character could have a balance centered philosophy or could merely only be interested in protecting themselves and their friends. The 'neutral's didn't mean enough, so they're replaced with a broader alignment: unaligned.
Evil: Tyrannical and controlling evil is more predictable and more conducive to civilization and so is closer to unaligned.
Chaotic Evil: The 'worst' evil. This is the evil that lies behind the threatening wilderness and the collapse of civilization. It is also at the end of the spectrum because it is in direct opposition to Lawful Good.
This still leaves us with Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral up in the air somewhat. Are they both just under the domain of Unaligned now? From what I've read in the except Unaligned is not concerned with the whole good vs evil struggle, but nothing is mentioned about chaos vs law. Does this mean that there is still some opening for dieties (as well as characters) to simply have preference for ordered or spontaneous approaches to their philosophies and lives, or is it simply a non-issue now?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080602a
I agree with their thinking, one of the downfalls of the old allignment system was the language it used. Chaotic for example implies a sort of insanity and unpredictability (chaotic meaning random and unpredictable) and is thus a poor word choice for an allignment. Neutral implies that you could go either way. and I've seen too many people playing Neutral who should be Evil. It also implies that the character thinks doing Evil is no big deal and would just as likely murder someone for the heck of it as do some good deed.
Unaligned is a good choice because it implies that committing oneself to a particular way (such as performing evil actions) would be choosing an allignment, thus an unaligned acts mostly good, but isn't overly motivated to do much more then that.
CG and NG are redundant, and really how you want your PC to act is up to the player so labels beyond good are just stiffling. Let the PC's personality decide how he reacts.
Law vs Chaos is also confusing, and is thus dropped. Chaotic impliies it is opposed to Law, and I don't think a Paladin and a CG character should be at odds, since the Paladin only respects legitimate authority that promotes good, he wouldn't support a law that oppressed people and thus would be in agreement with the CG character in that the Good of the individual outwieghs an oppressive law. they both have the same goal.
NE and LE are redundant as well, a LE person is still likely to cheat on his taxes, take bribes etc. Evil people don't respect the law, they follow it because it either suits their purpose or else they have no choice.
The new allignment was made to help end all the relentless confusion and debate regarding allignment.
If that is so, it is already a failure.
This is at least the eighth major thread I've seen on the new system and this despite the fact that players now more or less have the option to ignore alignment competely since it has been largely divorced from mechanics.
Rather than get into another long-winded discussion about how ditching CG and LE (only in name of course since the descriptions for G and E in the "new" system match completely the old CG and LE) makes just as much sense as ditching LG and CE and keeping the rest I will say only this:
Many people were apparently annoyed by the old system because people would engage in all sorts of arcane pseudo-philosophical speculation trying to put forth their own theories on how CG differed from NG and LE from NE.
What is the difference between that and engaging in pseudo-philosophical speculation (so far all the alignment threads I've seen do so) to differentiate between LG and G and CE and E? Why are we allowed to use questionable arguments and contestable rationalizations to defend the new system when the exact same questionable arguments and contestable rationalizations failed to defend the old one?
In short: why keep even a vestige of the old terminology (i.e. LG and CE)? Why not just kill the whole thing and give us the simple G v. E matchup everyone wanted?
If, after such a reformation, people were still desperate to play an LG or CE character well then they could always just "role-play" their way to that goal, no? That, after all, is what the proponents of the new system are telling those of us who liked playing CG characters and who never experienced the curious phenomenon -- which according to WotC was apparently quite common -- of a CG rogue pushing a paladin off a bridge (mind you I would fantasize about doing so to our party's paladin every time we crossed one of course)* simply because he was Lawful and Chaotic moreover means you have to "act random." I. Mean. Doh.
Parenthetically, I would just like to mention that, in almost every other category, I love 4e. And even though I dislike the new alignment system I do not think it is enough by itself to bring 4e down in my mind. I just hate the type of sophistry that employs bad reasoning to argue how all color is bad except Red, 'cause that's my favorite.
*Indeed, what growing rogue has not?
EDIT: I would still like to say that Krill's explanation for the new system that he posted above is excellent, however. I believe that it is the best way to conceptualize the 5 alignments. Alas, it is nevertheless still contestable.
EDIT: I would still like to say that Krill's explanation for the new system that he posted above is excellent, however. I believe that it is the best way to conceptualize the 5 alignments. Alas, it is nevertheless still contestable.
I agree with this. But on the other hand one could paraphrase/counter as:
Chaotic Good: Chaotic Good isn't just Good for Good's sake. Chaotic is a modifier of Good. Finally, because the setting is centered around a 'protect the weak' vs. 'take over the world' theme, Chaotic Good stands out as an alignment.
I guess what annoys me most is that we're back to the old Law is good, Chaos is evil misnomer. As a person who considers myself CG, this is moderately offensive.
They should have had 4 alignments, Good, Neutral, Apathetic, and Evil, where Neutral is the 'seeks balance' alignment, and Apathetic is the 'doesn't care'/'selfish but not malevolent' alignment. Just dismiss law and chaos altogether (if they are not going to be properly/fully supported), and separate the two versions of Neutral.
I agree with their thinking, one of the downfalls of the old allignment system was the language it used. Chaotic for example implies a sort of insanity and unpredictability (chaotic meaning random and unpredictable) and is thus a poor word choice for an allignment. Neutral implies that you could go either way. and I've seen too many people playing Neutral who should be Evil. It also implies that the character thinks doing Evil is no big deal and would just as likely murder someone for the heck of it as do some good deed.
...
Law vs Chaos is also confusing, and is thus dropped. Chaotic impliies it is opposed to Law, and I don't think a Paladin and a CG character should be at odds, since the Paladin only respects legitimate authority that promotes good, he wouldn't support a law that oppressed people and thus would be in agreement with the CG character in that the Good of the individual outwieghs an oppressive law. they both have the same goal.
I think a lot of the Law vs Chaos ideas came from Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books, and, seeing as they're not exactly common reading, especially nowadays, people don't have a reference for them, which is why Chaos is translated into 'insane and random.' I personally have no problems with the 9-way alignment, and if someone felt the need to simplify it, I'd actually prefer to drop the Good vs Evil part.
The new system says that Robin Hood isn't as Good as Sir Lancelot, and that Adolf Hitler wasn't as evil as your average serial killer. Complete rubbish, IMHO. They could have kept the old system, with all it's problems it is still familiar and hey, it's worked for thirty years, but they didn't. They could have replaced it with a system that perhaps encourages role-playing a little more, but they didn't.
-Chaos, was a poor term, as it literally implies random, unordered, uncontrolable and as a result insanity. The other issue is the use of Law vs Chaos, which essentially made Chotic Good opposed to Lawful Good, Sir lancealot would hunt Robin Hood down, even though both share the same ideals.
Good, but not bound by laws, is a better description, but one that is often missed because of the wording of "Chaotic" and the new allignment system drops the word Chaotic and just uses Good and Lawful Good, thus Chaotic Good is no longer opposed to Lawful Good and vice versa. Those who are simply Good are not so bound by laws.
-Neutral: being undecided between good and evil, law and chaos, makes little to no sense. By it's wording Neutral person values good and law as equally as Evil and Chaotic. So the Paladin is put on the same footing as the psyco serial killer? Not true, but so many times I have seen this reasoning used by players using Neutral so they can play basically Evil characters.
-Lawful Evil???? Evil beings only obey the laws because a: It benifits them to do so or b: they are forced to. A Lawful Evil person takes bribes and breaks/bends the laws as far as he can get away with it without getting caught. He enroces laws that suit him, such as slavery, etc, but ignores laws that don't (such as dumping toxic waste from his factory into the river) Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are simply a matter of circumstances, in the city a person is Lawful Evil because they are surrounded by guards, in the forest he is a lawless NE bandit because he can literally get away with murder.
Ok, so Chaotic Good and Neutral Good both fall under just "Good" now, and, by extention (and description in the Excerpt) Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil both fall under just "Evil" now.
This still leaves us with Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral up in the air somewhat. Are they both just under the domain of Unaligned now? From what I've read in the except Unaligned is not concerned with the whole good vs evil struggle, but nothing is mentioned about chaos vs law. Does this mean that there is still some opening for dieties (as well as characters) to simply have preference for ordered or spontaneous approaches to their philosophies and lives, or is it simply a non-issue now?
this system opens a whole new door for character personalities. just because your good doesn't mean that you can prefer law over chaos, or chaos over law for that matter. just because you are unaligned doesn't mean that you don't favor one over the other, it just means that you have chosen not to drastically fight for either side.
Several things I found disatisfying with the old allignment system was...
1) I understand the problem with the word "Chaos" and I see that they maybe had to do something to fix it, but to me it always seemed that the issue more revolved around a certain "kind" of player who always liked to excuse his poor behavior at the table by using the "Chaotic" label as a cover. I mean does it really take that much common sense to figure out that if you are Chaotic Good, it goes against the "Good" part to push a Lawful player off a bridge (WotC's own example)? Likewise, did Lawful mean you had to always follow the law no matter what? Usually, people had no problem applying common sense in that instance.
(As for your Robin Hood point: this is an absolute classic plot hook in a lot of stories: two "decent" characters forced to contest against each other because they are on opposite sides of the law.)
2) I completely agree with your point about Neutral. I think the Unaligned category is the best thing about the new system (about time in fact).
3) For me at least LE was not just about the individual who uses the "system" against his/her enemies. It was also a convenient alignment for those people who, because they are fanatical and self-righteous, believe they can use laws or an appeal to custom/tradition to "improve" society but end up doing more harm than good. These kind of people are not selfish and are willing to sacrifice even themselves sometimes because they are convinced their "holy cause" is just, i.e. for the "greater good." I am certain the people who brought us the Spanish Inquisition did not feel they were evil.
The guy you describe as dumping waste above would be still CE in my opinion.
-Lawful Evil???? Evil beings only obey the laws because a: It benifits them to do so or b: they are forced to. A Lawful Evil person takes bribes and breaks/bends the laws as far as he can get away with it without getting caught. He enroces laws that suit him, such as slavery, etc, but ignores laws that don't (such as dumping toxic waste from his factory into the river) Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are simply a matter of circumstances, in the city a person is Lawful Evil because they are surrounded by guards, in the forest he is a lawless NE bandit because he can literally get away with murder.
This is a common mistake, associating the alignment 'lawful' with 'the law' when the two have no association at all. A lawful evil character is organised and acts in a logical manner, regardless of their environment. It is not a matter of circumstance. A NE Bandit does what he wants. A LE Bandit is more likely to try to build an 'empire' with fences for stolen goods, contacts to give information on valuable marks, several coordinated gangs to complete ambushes etc. LE is not a matter of circumstance, but a fundamental approach to looking after number one by getting organised.
This is a common mistake, associating the alignment 'lawful' with 'the law' when the two have no association at all. A lawful evil character is organised and acts in a logical manner, regardless of their environment. It is not a matter of circumstance. A NE Bandit does what he wants. A LE Bandit is more likely to try to build an 'empire' with fences for stolen goods, contacts to give information on valuable marks, several coordinated gangs to complete ambushes etc. LE is not a matter of circumstance, but a fundamental approach to looking after number one by getting organised.
That could be true, but there are different shades of Lawful Evil, from the "logical" evildoer to the corrupt "lawful" officer taking bribes. Tagging such characters with "lawful" creates a straightjacket. They may be "logical" and "organized" but they can and will still behave unlawfully, exampled by taking bribes, breaking the law when they won't get caught, telling lies, not keeping their word, etc.
Even the Bandit in the forest, doing whatever he wants, can be organized and logical, using strategy and commanding his bandits efficently, while not having any particular rules and no regard to any laws.
In short, classifying an Evil person as lawful is more a matter of circumstance then it is anything else. So Lawful seems a redundent tag for Evil, since the evil tag will often negate many lawful actions and behaviors, Lawfulness is associated with many ideals of Goodness, such as honesty, honor, respect, fairness, truth, justice etc, evil is associated with dishonesty, disrespect of others, unfairness, lies, injustice, etc Basic point being that Evil is generally the opposite of lawful, which makes the tag "Lawful Evil" somewhat sceptical.
That being said, Lawful evil and Neutral Evil are not disposed of, but are grouped together as being simply Evil, the character concept can handle the shade of behavior such as the Evil Magistrate, or the Evil Bandit (so far as lawful or neutral behavior goes) but the tag Lawful will not straightjacket them, which as described above the lawful tag really shouldn't straight jacket an evil character.
Aside from that, with the lawful nature of a evil person being so dubious, the tag Lawful in previous editions only served as a weakness against chaos and lawful spells, such as Protection against Lawful. To me the lawful tag just serves as a weakness to evil characters as well as a straight jacket that conflicts with them being Evil.
(As for your Robin Hood point: this is an absolute classic plot hook in a lot of stories: two "decent" characters forced to contest against each other because they are on opposite sides of the law.)
I remind you, sir, that when the Lawful Good King Richard, the Lion Heart, and his Lawful Good Knights returned, that he promptly exonerated Robinhood and aquited him and his band of merry men of all crimes.
But your point is taken. However a Lawful Good character would be only opposed to the unlawful actions of such a CG character as Robinhood. But that would only be if the LG person didn't know what Robinhood was fighting against.
Upon discovering the Evilness of the Regent and his Sherriff and their plots, the Lawful Good person would have joined Robin's side.
BTW Robinhood was not just robbing the rich. Specifically he was siezing the taxes that the regent was raising to fund the overthrow of the proper monarch, and then redistributing it back to those oppressed by the regent. And while we would tag Robinhood with the allignment of Chaotic Good, he was infact supporting the Lawful monarchy and was opposing the Unlawful actions of the regent. This is another example of the problem with the Chaos vs Lawful tags.
That could be true, but there are different shades of Lawful Evil, from the "logical" evildoer to the corrupt "lawful" officer taking bribes. Tagging such characters with "lawful" creates a straightjacket. They may be "logical" and "organized" but they can and will still behave unlawfully, exampled by taking bribes, breaking the law when they won't get caught, telling lies, not keeping their word, etc.
But this is "Unlawful" with respect to the law, not "unlawful" with respect to logic and organisation; this is still lawful (in terms of alignment) behaviour. You are agreeing that lawful =/= obeys the law and then try to argue that the lawful evil person isn't lawful because they break the law? Come again?
Even the Bandit in the forest, doing whatever he wants, can be organized and logical, using strategy and commanding his bandits efficently, while not having any particular rules and no regard to any laws.
In short, classifying an Evil person as lawful is more a matter of circumstance then it is anything else. So Lawful seems a redundent tag for Evil, since the evil tag will often negate many lawful actions and behaviors, Lawfulness is associated with many ideals of Goodness, such as honesty, honor, respect, fairness, truth, justice etc, evil is associated with dishonesty, disrespect of others, unfairness, lies, injustice, etc Basic point being that Evil is generally the opposite of lawful, which makes the tag "Lawful Evil" somewhat sceptical.
Huh? No, it isn't. It's about the way they behave. Lawful does NOT mean honourable. It means consistent. Just because honourable behaviour is lawful does not make all lawful characters honourable. It does not require fairness, respect, truth or any of these ideals. Point to the description of Lawful that includes these and does not also include the description "Good". It isn't there. Lawful means consistent, logical, methodical, organised. The rest that you quote comes the alignment descriptor for "good". A lawful evil person can be consistently unfair, consistently lie, consistently disrespect huge numbers of people (as they are by his definition of "unworthy" of any respect).
That being said, Lawful evil and Neutral Evil are not disposed of, but are grouped together as being simply Evil, the character concept can handle the shade of behavior such as the Evil Magistrate, or the Evil Bandit (so far as lawful or neutral behavior goes) but the tag Lawful will not straightjacket them, which as described above the lawful tag really shouldn't straight jacket an evil character.
Yes, and they are treated as being less evil than chaotic evil, which is IMHO incorrect. Mobsters and tyrants are good examples of lawful evil. Is arranging the deaths of thousands somehow less evil because it is well-organised and dressed up as legal than killing ten people personally because you feel like it? I would argue Lawful Evil is MORE evil, because it can achieve more and because it can compel the good to do bad by imposing appalling choices on them. As one resident of Germany said of the Nazi years: "It was then I realised that by making me afraid to help people, Hitler had made me a murderer." That, to me, is REAL evil.
Aside from that, with the lawful nature of a evil person being so dubious, the tag Lawful in previous editions only served as a weakness against chaos and lawful spells, such as Protection against Lawful. To me the lawful tag just serves as a weakness to evil characters as well as a straight jacket that conflicts with them being Evil.
Only to you. It isn't in the least bit dubious to me. How many dictators rule under an iron fist on the premise that: "My law is better than the chaos that would ensue if I were not here to organise things. You have to have strong government, and this necessitates hard choices." You don't believe me? Take a good long look at what is happening in Zimbabwe right now.
Or are you arguing that ANY organised society, even one that murders and oppresses it's own people with sadistic glee is better than a chaotic society?
Chaos is the underworld of the cities and the wild frontiers of the land. Chaotic people are not unpredictable, but prefer to make their own rules and serve their own purposes. Chaos tends to be individualistic, and about individual achievement.
Chaotic good people are individualists with principles, rebels, wanderers, or thieves who are yet willing to put their lives on the line to help other people. They often oppose the social roles and rules that lawful people see as necessary to preserve order. A chaotic person will often try to do what is right even if such an action threatens to throw society into chaos. A paladin will act to preserve the rule of an ignoble king if he sees the anarchy that would follow his downfall as worse than the king's depradations, while the chaotic rogue might work to expose him.
Lawful Evil is, essentially, fanaticism. The evil cleric who will die to strike one blow against a heretic, the guard captain who will torture indiscriminately in order to root out the rebellion that he sees as threatening to his kingdom. The petty tyrant may make laws and benefit from them, but he is by no means lawful.
Chaotic evil, I think, we all understand. The marauder who cares for nothing but his own survival and pleasure, who kills because he enjoys it. While by no means is this the worst form of evil, it is often the most frightening.
Chaotic evil, I think, we all understand. The marauder who cares for nothing but his own survival and pleasure, who kills because he enjoys it. While by no means is this the worst form of evil, it is often the most frightening.
I'm acturly of the other mindset, I find the idea of a Lawfull evil goverment considerbly more scary, since in many way there no were to run, since groups like the police and army serve authority..
I'm acturly of the other mindset, I find the idea of a Lawfull evil goverment considerbly more scary, since in many way there no were to run, since groups like the police and army serve authority..
I'm with you there. You can fight the mad axeman, and others will help you. Face up to the tyrannical government, and you're on your own ...
Upon discovering the Evilness of the Regent and his Sherriff and their plots, the Lawful Good person would have joined Robin's side.
I don't think I would ever dispute that the Law-Chaos conflict was not always secondary to the Good-Evil conflict in D&D. Of course it was. On the other hand, it was still possible for two good and decent people to disagree over the authoritarian nature of a government or of whether this or that law was just or proper. Such disagreements would not result in a party of paladins attacking a CG encampment of elves as if they were orcs, of course. The L/C axis was just there to provide a little added flavor, a little added wrinkle to the otherwise grindingly boring and repetitive battle between outright "good heroes" and outright "bad monsters."
According to WotC, however, players were clearly incapable of dealing with the subtlety of this added wrinkle and instead we had paladins butchering CG characters and rogues tossing Lawful characters off bridges. So the L/C axis had to go. Fine. Demeaning to the rest of us who rarely engaged in rogue- or paladin-tossing when we crossed bridges, but fine.
But why the still keep the "Lawful" and "Chaotic" tags on the extremes of the new system?
And while we would tag Robinhood with the allignment of Chaotic Good, he was infact supporting the Lawful monarchy and was opposing the Unlawful actions of the regent. This is another example of the problem with the Chaos vs Lawful tags.
The legend of Robin Hood, like all popular legends, myths, and fairy tales, has many versions. Each of those versions chooses to emphasize certain things about the character in order to get across a point. In some versions, his political allegiance to Richard figures prominently. In others, his anti-authoritarianism is not only displayed by his support of the lower classes but also by his severe (at times) anti-clericalism (the very symbols of the medieval Spiritual Order).
In some stories he is an aristocrat, in others a member of the lower gentry, in still others just a simple freeholder. In relatively recent times, (20thc. and beyond), the theme of Saxon v. Norman has been introduced, the implication being that Saxon society was a little more free and a little less restrictive than the Norman with all its complicated feudal laws and tyrannical regulations. I have even seen reference to the fact that John was used as one of the villains because of his later espousal of authoritarian monarchial rule which was ultimately "foiled" by the signing of the Magna Charta.
In short: we see in Robin what we want to see. You, as a supporter of this new system highlight the "lawful" aspects of his myth. I and the rest of the people who are sad to see the imposition of a pro-lawful bias in this game (even if it is just a matter of simple labels) see him as a rebel.
V is for which Version you prefer I suppose.
But why then still keep the "Lawful" and "Chaotic" tags on the extremes of the new system?
...because the essence of the new game is Law vrs Chaos (civilisation's points of light vrs "the darkness" of the chaotic wild - quite "carolingen"....)?
It would have been nice if they could have kept the 9 box approach but with a slight modification to make a clear difference between the two poles:
* Law vrs Chaos: Belief in organised defining structure vrs a disbelief in the existance/value of structure. Eg: Justice vrs Vigilantism, Social Stratification vrs Anarchy, or Fate vrs Freewill. Chaotics deem it acceptable to push the issue through personal passion, whilst a Lawful says you trust the order of things and not push too hard.
* Good vrs Evil: Nurturing vrs Predation. Good people adopt values that nurture and encourage, whilst Evil people adopt ruthlessly competitive practices. Examples of Good values would be mercy and forgiveness, whilst examples of Evil values would offer no second chances....."there but for the grace of God" compared to "you're in command now, Admiral Piet" :D
Although, that said, I can see a single pole in that which could be used as well; with ruthlessness being more tied to the impatience of chaos.....making the current set up of LG-G-UN-E-CE :D
The legend of Robin Hood, like all popular legends, myths, and fairy tales, has many versions. Each of those versions chooses to emphasize certain things about the character in order to get across a point. In some versions, his political allegiance to Richard figures prominently. In others, his anti-authoritarianism is not only displayed by his support of the lower classes but also by his severe (at times) anti-clericalism (the very symbols of the medieval Spiritual Order).
In some stories he is an aristocrat, in others a member of the lower gentry, in still others just a simple freeholder. In relatively recent times, (20thc. and beyond), the theme of Saxon v. Norman has been introduced, the implication being that Saxon society was a little more free and a little less restrictive than the Norman with all its complicated feudal laws and tyrannical regulations. I have even seen reference to the fact that John was used as one of the villains because of his later espousal of authoritarian monarchial rule which was ultimately "foiled" by the signing of the Magna Charta.
In short: we see in Robin what we want to see. You, as a supporter of this new system highlight the "lawful" aspects of his myth. I and the rest of the people who are sad to see the imposition of a pro-lawful bias in this game (even if it is just a matter of simple labels) see him as a rebel.
V is for which Version you prefer I suppose.
There are several basic Robin Hoods:
* the classic guerilla fighter against norman rule (a la Michael Praed)
* the thief who robbed the rich...because they had the money ;)
* the "Errol Flynn" swashbuckling jokey hero
* the mythical spirit of the woods (akin to Puck in MSND or Robin Goodfellow)
* the wronged nobleman (a la, Kevin Costner or Jason Connery)
The "Chaotic" notion comes from the Errol Flynn characterisation, but it is based on a poorly defined concept of "Chaos".
According to WotC, however, players were clearly incapable of dealing with the subtlety of this added wrinkle and instead we had paladins butchering CG characters and rogues tossing Lawful characters off bridges. So the L/C axis had to go. Fine. Demeaning to the rest of us who rarely engaged in rogue- or paladin-tossing when we crossed bridges, but fine.
But why the still keep the "Lawful" and "Chaotic" tags on the extremes of the new system?
First the vagueness of Chaos as applied to Good. How can someone truely be CG when the obvious benifts and results of being Good lead to civilization and ordered society? How can he be anti-authoritan to a degree as to oppose laws that protect the individual and their personal freedoms?
Would a CG person oppose a LG law protecting their Freedom of Speach?
All Good are on the same side, the tag "Lawful" is used to distinguish those, such as the Paladins, who fervently uphold and espouse the virtues of civilization and Good.
Lawful is both more distinguishing and restrictive. Chaotic Good isn't and shouldn't be as restrictive and so the tag chaotic is left out. As mentioned above, a CG person would not be opposed to LG laws protecting and supporting individual freedom, thus while he isn't advocating law, he also isn't trying to tear the system down either (assuming the system is good) thus he is not restricted.
This is important to note, because a NG or CG character's actions and restrictions are by and large dictated by the player. You can for example make a CG PC who doesn't steal at all, or a CG PC who Steals from the rich and gives to the poor, or a CG person who just Steals. The Chaotic tag has no restriction, so really needs no tag.
A LG characterc especially the Paladin class, however has many restrictions on his behavior and character concept, thus the tag lawful is needed.
Similarly Evil is Evil, and it is only the character concept that determines how evil and debase he is. A LE magistrate could be a fervent believer in enforcing his evil laws , or he could be a corrupt magestrate, taking bribes etc. The LE tag is redundant. Depending on the situation though a evil person could be reasoned with or otherwise could exist. a corrupt magestrate could still pass a fair judgement because he observes the law (at least in face) A Greedy, evil baron is not a raving lunitic.
Thus Chaotic has it's application in the Evil extreme. The complete lunitic destroyer such as a Wizard liche gone mad with power, cares only for destruction and suffering of others. This distinguishes them from other evil doers who are simply just self interested. The difference between a bank robber and a serial killer, the difference between Napolean and Hitler.
In short: we see in Robin what we want to see. You, as a supporter of this new system highlight the "lawful" aspects of his myth. I and the rest of the people who are sad to see the imposition of a pro-lawful bias in this game (even if it is just a matter of simple labels) see him as a rebel.
V is for which Version you prefer I suppose.
This was chiefly my point. Robin hood was Good, but it could be agrued that he wa CG or LG or even NG. Therefore the tags L,C and N are all redundant. The only time a tag other then Good becomes relevant is in the case of Lawful, where the character must abide by specific ideals and codes, such as the Paladin class.
I think both you and Furry (in many other threads where he and I have talked about this issue) just cannot compass the notion that a person who by nature distrusts all laws and authority (because they are created by imperfect beings and are therefore themselves imperfect and always open to abuse) can be good.
If Order=greater organization and complexity then Chaos=greater disorganization and simplification. In the political realm, therefore, this cosmic struggle would play out like this:
Authoritarianism(highly regulated society)----------------------------------------------Anarchy(society w/o laws)
A CG character is simply one who believes that the scale should be tipped towards anarchy in order to ensure the most good. It is by no means a given (as both you and Furry seem to imply) that more laws=more good. This is, in and of itself, a highly biased and LAWFUL supposition. In RL, my personal conviction would be to state the EXACT OPPOSITE. Less regulation and enforcement means you are probably living in a freer and thus MORE GOOD society. There is no easier way to commit evil then to use the laws of society to do so. One uniformed person committing a crime is worse than 10 civilians doing so because the uniformed person has a much higher chance of getting away with it indefinitely.
Now does a CG character say "wipe out all laws" as you seem to want to state? No. Anyone who has any sense (and we assume a "Good" person has sense) can see that at least some laws are necessary in order to have a society in the first place. No laws means no society. Perfect anarchy is impossible. A Perfectly Controlled society is (at least so far) just as impossible. The extremes make no sense for either side. In fact the correct question in my opinion is not
Would a CG person oppose a LG law protecting their Freedom of Speach?
Since it is painfully obvious that some laws are necessary in order to ensure the maximum freedom for the maximum amount of people (this was the traditional definition of LIBERTY accepted by many Enlightenment philosophes). A CG character would not only know that liberty is even better than freedom; he/she would give his/her life to defend the concept.
So instead we should ask: would a LG person oppose such a law knowing that "freedom of speech" can have messy and unpredictable results?
A CG person would no more wish to live in a completely lawless society any more than a LG person would wish to live in a society where one must ask permission from the higher-ups to use the bathroom or to think certain thoughts.
Just because you don't believe in a society where people distrust personal freedom so much that everything must be regulated by Big Brother in order to make sense, does not mean you have no ideals you want to die for. A politically "chaotic" person can have beliefs just as regimented as a paladin's and here's a big one:
Nothing is as important to the promulgation of the Good as the insurance of the maximum amount of personal freedom.
To the extent that laws insure such freedom then even a CG person would find them desirable. However, experience shows that laws just as often (more often in fact if we take history as guide) tend to do the opposite: they crush freedom in the name of "collective security." And that is NOT good.
Conversely, there is no more pernicious and horrible evil than LE because LE pretends to be Good up until the guillotine drops on your unsuspecting head. I'll take Dahmer over Robespierre (the "Incorruptible One") any day and twice on Sunday. CE is as obvious as a freight train. You can, on the other hand, never see LE coming because many LE people actually think of themselves as good (I'd venture to say Hitler -- since you brought him up -- thought he was grand fellow and a champion for light and justice).
CE as WotC describes it is a caricaturized comic book stand-in for true evil.
House rules are smart. and I'm not buying till 4.5
Boulis... good job.
CE is your modern American politician... He cares for nothing else but himself.
LE is you layer (had to get it in there), he uses law to his advantage, to **** some one over.
LG is the judge, law brings justice... order must be maintained for the greater good.
CG is a revolutionary or vigilante... obeying and unjust law is wrong... ect.
True neutral is the relativist... perception is knowledge and all that bull.
Good is the Seeking of the what is right, yada yada...
Evil is seeking for oneself.
Lawful is order... do as you are told, things must stay the same.
Chaos is application of entropy... change must take place, rebellion must come to be.
First the vagueness of Chaos as applied to Good. How can someone truely be CG when the obvious benifts and results of being Good lead to civilization and ordered society? How can he be anti-authoritan to a degree as to oppose laws that protect the individual and their personal freedoms?
Would a CG person oppose a LG law protecting their Freedom of Speach?
All Good are on the same side, the tag "Lawful" is used to distinguish those, such as the Paladins, who fervently uphold and espouse the virtues of civilization and Good.
Lawful is both more distinguishing and restrictive. Chaotic Good isn't and shouldn't be as restrictive and so the tag chaotic is left out. As mentioned above, a CG person would not be opposed to LG laws protecting and supporting individual freedom, thus while he isn't advocating law, he also isn't trying to tear the system down either (assuming the system is good) thus he is not restricted.
This is important to note, because a NG or CG character's actions and restrictions are by and large dictated by the player. You can for example make a CG PC who doesn't steal at all, or a CG PC who Steals from the rich and gives to the poor, or a CG person who just Steals. The Chaotic tag has no restriction, so really needs no tag.
A LG characterc especially the Paladin class, however has many restrictions on his behavior and character concept, thus the tag lawful is needed.
Similarly Evil is Evil, and it is only the character concept that determines how evil and debase he is. A LE magistrate could be a fervent believer in enforcing his evil laws , or he could be a corrupt magestrate, taking bribes etc. The LE tag is redundant. Depending on the situation though a evil person could be reasoned with or otherwise could exist. a corrupt magestrate could still pass a fair judgement because he observes the law (at least in face) A Greedy, evil baron is not a raving lunitic.
Thus Chaotic has it's application in the Evil extreme. The complete lunitic destroyer such as a Wizard liche gone mad with power, cares only for destruction and suffering of others. This distinguishes them from other evil doers who are simply just self interested. The difference between a bank robber and a serial killer, the difference between Napolean and Hitler.
This was chiefly my point. Robin hood was Good, but it could be agrued that he wa CG or LG or even NG. Therefore the tags L,C and N are all redundant. The only time a tag other then Good becomes relevant is in the case of Lawful, where the character must abide by specific ideals and codes, such as the Paladin class.
I prety much agree with Boulis points, but I make a few myself..
Chaotic evil is not nessery "crazy lunatic evil" its evil with passtion, with desire and strong emotions.
While say Talos is CE of the "boom and rage" type, there far more subtle versions.
For example take the average CE bard, subduction and breaking hearts are his bread and butter.
Also it could be argued that the idea of liberty when it pops up in law is in fact a chaotic impulse brought within the frame of law., rather than a orderly impulse.
Also on LE vs CE. Lawfull evil character typicaly belive there the "good guys" in there own head. However you find that some of the worse horrors ever to vist the human race were very well orgnised, Ethnic clensing and such are prety much lawfull evil incarnate.
For some example fantasy, very scary LE, read the book 1984 and watch the Doctor episodes that focus on Cybermen. Also the Matrix is a very nice example of CG vs LE.
Conversely, there is no more pernicious and horrible evil than LE because LE pretends to be Good up until the guillotine drops on your unsuspecting head. I'll take Dahmer over Robespierre (the "Incorruptible One") any day and twice on Sunday. CE is as obvious as a freight train. You can, on the other hand, never see LE coming because many LE people actually think of themselves as good (I'd venture to say Hitler -- since you brought him up -- thought he was grand fellow and a champion for light and justice).
CE as WotC describes it is a caricaturized comic book stand-in for true evil.
Well put.
Allow me to present an alternative example of CG vs LE, from the 70's concepts of USA vs USSR. Consider the USA as home of the free, champion of free speech, the right to self determination, the champion of equality etc. All of the qualities proposed are those that can be interpreted as as Chaotic Good, as opposed to the oppressive, centrally controlled, secretly-policed, politically stagnant USSR, whose values one could equate to Lawful Evil.
Or another example: The civilised Roman Empire vs the barbarian Celts. In Celtic society every man was free, women had rights equal to men, society was organised loosely but compassion was a central theme. The Romans ... didn't, but they had a big, efficient army, and took what they wanted, when they wanted it. They supported their empire through slaves, women had no rights, and they were easily more bloodthirsty and violent than the barbarians they deplored.
A lawful society is NOT more intrinsically 'good' than a chaotic one. It's just better organised (and hence has a better organised army, which means they tend to win and write the history books).
Replace "Lawful Good" with "Supernal." Supernal is the alignment of the purest of spirits, who are willing to die in the name of good at a moment's notice.
Replace "Chaotic Evil" with "Infernal." Infernal is the alignment of those are so depraved as to be damned by their own actions long before their death and final judgment.
Bada-bing, bada-boom, done.
And for the record, my two favorite alignments to play were Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral - the Merry Rogue and the Long Arm of the Law archetypes, if you will. I, like a previous poster, also find the implication that "Lawful Good" is "more good" than what would have formerly been "Chaotic Good" to be somewhat demeaning. But there, now that I've fixed it by changing the terminology, I can move on with my life.... Hopefully the rest of you lot can, too. ;)
I can't believe that I'm already writing house-rules for an edition that I haven't even finished reading yet
Yes, that is just so wrong on many levels ...
The alignments which were means to an end are removed, leaving only the meaningful alignments, which are the ends alone. Lawful evil doesn't mean "powerful control freaks." The balor and the vampire, both traditionally chaotic evil, used Dominate in 3E.
Consider the USA as home of the free, champion of free speech, the right to self determination, the champion of equality etc. All of the qualities proposed are those that can be interpreted as as Chaotic Good, as opposed to the oppressive, centrally controlled, secretly-policed, politically stagnant USSR, whose values one could equate to Lawful Evil.
Except for the source of those rights are LAWS, applied to everyone, and the source of the USSR's tyranny was that the rulers were not restrained by laws, but rather the glorious ideology of communism, steeped in notions about, in fact, bringing forth universal equality, and continual revolution.
Chaotic good is the alignment of tyrants. The dictionary, afterall, says a dictator is a ruler not restrained by law. Hell, look at Zeus, the archetypal tyrant; chaotic good. It takes far more to be lawful evil than the fact that you're on top. Do you really think that a neutral evil or chaotic evil person at level 30 with millions of gold pieces, is NOT going to set up secret police and jackbooted thugs to serve his whim? Of course he will! Do you think that chaotic evil vampires and balors don't enjoy dominating everyone in sight? Of course they do!
Anyway, its hard to be evil when you believe in laws that restrain even you and even the ruler of your dystopia. Darth Vader, for instance, is obviously not lawful evil. "That wasn't part of our bargain!" "I am altering the bargain."
Or another example: The civilised Roman Empire vs the barbarian Celts. In Celtic society every man was free, women had rights equal to men, society was organised loosely but compassion was a central theme. The Romans ... didn't, but they had a big, efficient army, and took what they wanted, when they wanted it. They supported their empire through slaves, women had no rights, and they were easily more bloodthirsty and violent than the barbarians they deplored.
A lawful society is NOT more intrinsically 'good' than a chaotic one. It's just better organised (and hence has a better organised army, which means they tend to win and write the history books).
Organization is a factor of intelligence and skill, not of ideology.
Consider the USA as home of the free, champion of free speech, the right to self determination, the champion of equality etc. All of the qualities proposed are those that can be interpreted as as Chaotic Good, as opposed to the oppressive, centrally controlled, secretly-policed, politically stagnant USSR, whose values one could equate to Lawful Evil.
What people often forget about the USA and its claim that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is the next part of that paragraph, which goes on to say that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".
Without a system of order, the animal takes over and liberty goes out of the window in favour of a "war of each against all". All those liberties you like so much are gained by policing those who will not respect them (which is pretty much every species prior to humans....and more than a few of the human species too).
CG is a hippy wet-dream nonsense.
[snip]Without a system of order, the animal takes over and liberty goes out of the window[snip]
The chaotic alignment (3.5) is not against all order. They will band together in groups, especially when faced with a common threat or goal. These groups will be smaller and less organized than lawful groups, but they will still exist.
The chaotic alignment (3.5) is not against all order. They will band together in groups, especially when faced with a common threat or goal. These groups will be smaller and less organized than lawful groups, but they will still exist.
Haphazard and temporary order is not order of the kind that secures rights against the rule of whim and ego.....
CG and LE had to go, because its rare that a player could grasp CG beyond "Ahm an action hero who plays by my own rules! I'm a freedom fighter fighting for freedom and I live by my own conscience!" or LE beyond "Jackbooted thugs! Monolithic evil!"
In other words, are you saying the player demographic for 4.0 are too stupid to grasp the concepts? If I have to be an elitist to want to play with people smart enough to figure the alignment wheel, then I'll be an elitist and I'll thank you for calling me one.
The alignments which were means to an end are removed, leaving only the meaningful alignments, which are the ends alone. Lawful evil doesn't mean "powerful control freaks." The balor and the vampire, both traditionally chaotic evil, used Dominate in 3E.
Why are they the only meaningful ones? The others were always considered valid and meaningful before!
Organization is a factor of intelligence and skill, not of ideology.
But there is the question of how much organisation is required, and at what point do you lose rights because of it? CG minimises organisation in order to maximise freedom. Further organisation is allowed, it simply isn't mandatory. LE maximises organisation at the expense of personal freedom in the belief that the organisation benefits outweigh the personal losses (eg, people not toeing the line losing their lives).
Consider most CGs in normal soiaty, course there not breaking the law all the time but they are the one who make the most noise about things like freedom of speech and civil liberties.
Nothing "lawfull good" about the idea that everyone should have the vote and people should be free to say what they want.
This leaves Good and Evil as inbetween points; with Evil betwix the pure egotism of CE and the tribalism of Un, and Good between the tribal loyalty of Un and the principled nature of LG.
The unaligned can be seen in recent items in the news over here in the UK; where people were saying they would not "grass" on their families if they commited a crime. A LG person places loyalty to principles before loyalty to people and would certainly "grass" on a family member who broke the law. A Good person would have their loyalties tested (as they tread the boundary between the tribal and the principle). An Evil person would do what best served their advancement within the tribe (without endangering their present position or the existance of the tribe itself).
As far as your first point about players not grasping the basic meaning of the old alignment system, I would heartily agree although I would venture to say that WotC and even TSR have to bear some of the responsibility for the confusion because their descriptions were often contradictory and obtuse.
But some of your other points are strained.
1) Your example of the USSR shows an incomplete understanding of the ideology of Marxism, for example. Marxism, for a true communist, is the ULTIMATE LAW. It supercedes any law you might make to meet this or that contingency and you are bound to its dictates as if it were a religion. Stalin, for example, often characterized as "not a true Marxist" was actually attempting to force rapid industrialization on the USSR through his infamous "collectivization" program. Why was he doing so? Because Marx (GOD) had written that a truly communist revolution can only succeed in an advanced industrialized society. And Stalin, like the good Marxist he was, tried to transform predominantly agricultural Russia into an industrial state as fast as he could, no matter how many corpses it cost.
Why? Because the ULTIMATE LAW (Marx) said so.
As an aside, according to Marx, “perpetual revolution” is most certainly NOT the goal of the true socialist. Instituting true socialism will make revolution unnecessary because after the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will have run its course we will be living in a perfect society so there will never again be a need for revolution.
2) This is the second time you've claimed the dictionary definition of tyranny/dictatorship means "not restrained by law." I would appreciate it if you gave me that precise citation since I would think one possible definition of tyrant/dictator might mean that but certainly not all meanings of tyrant/dictator would. In short, I am sure many (if not most) tyrants throughout history thought themselves above the law. But I am also certain some did not (a few religious fanatics immediately come to mind). In any case, if we have the definition in front of us we can analyze it without the need for guesswork.
As for your point on Zeus: TSR arbitrarily assigned him the alignment CG. Simply because the godlike devs decided he was CG does not make him so. **Unless, one is so “Lawful” that whatever the devs say must be the Truth.**
2a) I have no doubt that all flavors of evil types would love a huge secret police. The difference is to what end such a force would be constituted. A CE character (defined by love of self) would look to use it as a tool for personal gain. But the Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada would use it to find heretics and burn them at the stake. The Committee of Public Safety (French Revolution) would use it to persecute counter-revolutionaries. Personal gain means nothing to fanatical true believers like them who believe that their version of the truth is the only one and hence that makes it, once again, the ULTIMATE LAW. People like these often thirst to be “martyred” for the cause to show how devout and loyal to the ULTIMATE LAW they really are. They are completely UNselfish and have no fear because they care little about their lives.
2b) But there is another type of LE as well (someone mentioned this in an old thread and it bears repeating here but I wish I could give the person who said it credit). This LE type does believe himself/herself to be “above the law” but because he/she is the source of it. Like the King of France Louis XIV who stated “after me, the deluge (i.e. “chaos”)” and “I am the State.” They see themselves as stern parents. It is ridiculous to them that a “parent” would be held accountable to the same rules as a “child.” Children need discipline and structure so they don’t go around having unauthorized “happy wet dreams” to quote Furry. A few tortures and executions go a long way to insuring security and Order.
3) Darth Vader altered the bargain because he had no respect for the people he was contracting it with. For most true believers, those who do not share their beliefs are not worthy of any type of consideration, they are “infidels” and “heathens” and with such people anything is permissible, even lying or breaking rules. Still LE though.
I don’t understand your last point about the Roman Empire I’m afraid. But we should remember that laws just don’t mean words on paper or stone. Even the most primitive Neolithic tribes before the dawn of civilization (and writing) had laws. Indeed it is impossible to envision a society without laws as Furry correctly implied. All we are talking about here is which side of the regulation divide you happen to fall on: less or more?
p.s. Furry I would just like to say that if those “hippies” John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Stuart Mill did not share a certain “happy wet-dream” this would be a far grimmer world today than it is.
Given the example of a close friend or relative breaking the law, for the CG person it's a question of exactly which law is being broken. Murder? You turn them in! Smoking illegal herbage? Hell, it's their decision and their health, as long as they aren't addicted and can function, who cares?
CG people respect laws in society when they make sense. They don't respect laws that don't make sense to them, or that they feel serve a purpose other than society's general well-being. In modern society they are agitators, iconoclasts and people that sometimes take greta delight in highlighting to us where our societies go wrong. Love 'em or hate 'em, they fulfil the useful purpose of making us think twice about many things and question the rules and their reasons. It is the acceptance of these people in the western democracies that has helped us keep balanced, moderate societies and avoid the oppressions and purges of dictatorships elsewhere in the world, where ideology or ego is taken to the extreme.
p.s. Furry I would just like to say that if those “hippies” John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Stuart Mill did not share a certain “happy wet-dream” this would be a far grimmer world today than it is.
Hippies? Shall we play "spot the slave owner"? ;)
Besides, the DoI says that liberty and rights can only be secured through establishing govt..... ;)
In the group i DM'ed the players used alignments beautifully. We had a CN scout who played the alginment to a hit. Not by being a jerk and derailing the game by killing everone, but being all about himself while still sticking with the group. He was a total flake but still trustable by the group, because he played him as a realistic person who actualy can have friends while still being a bit upredictable. Our LG pally didnt do to much stuff to step on the players toes, he never interviened but he sort of did this thing where he did the "Im watching you" finger motion, and voiced his opinion while still going along with the rest of the group. The alignment system was beautifull when done right.
But the problem was it was mostly done WRONG. in reality the game had 11 alignments, including lawfull stupid and chaotic stupid. Lawfull players tended to try to enforce there own will on the group, while chaotic players resisted the group entirly. Its not that the players wernt smart enough to "Get it", but it was hard to find out what "IT" was. I personaly will be using the new system in my current game, because it has new players, but amongst my personal friends, i will use the old system. Its not like its set it stone people, use whatever you want to use! Do you think Wotc will kick down your door and "adventure" all over your face and then "loot" the books just because you altered the rules for your group?
As for the 3rd Edition C vs L stuff, I feel the need to point out that someone who wishes to live in a purely lawless society is probably ideologically Chaotic, not Good, and very likely to be Chaotic Neutral unless unrelated behaviour makes them also Good. A CG character in a system that places greater emphasis on Good/Evil as opposed to Chaos/Law is likely to be someone who wishes to defend Good ideals, but believes that the best way to do that is through a society that upholds individual rights and freedoms and transparent governance. A CG character would argue against the concept of "classified information" stating that that makes it too easy for Evil to infiltrate the government and hide behind obscuring bureaucracy. A Lawful Good character would state that sensitive information should be restricted because it is less likely that the Evil person will be in the government, with all its checks and balances, as opposed to the outside world. Both are valid arguments, and in most cases the CG and LG characters are still allies and functioning members of society. If they come into conflict, it will likely be because they misunderstand/don't trust each other, or their personalities are stubborn and reactive.
If the CG character hates the police and wants the government totally out of his life, especially if his justification is "I can take care of myself", there is a very high chance that you are dealing with a Chaotic Neutral character who just happens to be a nice guy. The thing that really killed a lot of this was the transformation in many people's minds of Chaotic Neutral from a valid alignment into something to hide Chaotic Evil or just being an idiot behind.
The main problem with the new alignment is that people are misunderstanding it or maybe even not reading the whole thing. The book states explicitly that Lawful Good is no better than Good, and Chaotic Evil is no worse than Evil. Sure, Lawful Good probably thinks it's better than Good, and would certainly think Chaotic Evil is worse than Evil, but the book is pretty damn clear that it's not a gradient, they are four disconnected sets, the complement of which is "Unaligned". The Unaligned wandering mercenary is definitely closer to Chaotic Evil than Evil.
LG is not more "good" than Good, but it is a more solid "good"; in the same way a stone bridge is not more of a bridge than a rope one is....but its just a more solid and resiliant one that will serve its purpose in a more secure and ongoing manner.
As someone said though (it may have been in another thread, somedays I lose track :D ) it would have been less confusing to go for a "Good, Unaligned or Evil" approach to alignment....so long as Good was not yet another bit of PC humanistic nonsense
* Good: loyalty to 'noble' principles: justice, modesty, temperance, faith, hope....
* Neutral: "tribal loyalty", "clan loyalty"...loyalty to "me and mine" over abstract principles
* Evil: Egotism raised on a pedestal and garnered with flowers, loyal to none but the self
but hey, no chance of that I guess...
Hippies? Shall we play "spot the slave owner"? ;)
Besides, the DoI says that liberty and rights can only be secured through establishing govt..... ;)
Hey, I was only using your own chosen terminology for people espousing a CG set of ideals, at least as I elaborated them in my penultimate post. As for the "slave owner" thing, I will refrain from getting into a long-winded discussion about this historical topic, aside from stipulating that, whatever their individual faults (and they had many) without the collective effort of the four men I mentioned (among others) to put some important ideas on paper, the human race might still be saddled with a wide-ranging system of slavery.
Every civilization practiced slavery. Only a few select people questioned it.
On the DoI thing, as both Kenji implied and Picard explicitly stated, CG would not mean a belief in no laws. You insist on defining "chaotic" in its absolutely most extreme form while resisting the idea that people could do the same for "lawful," i.e. a person who cannot blow his nose without citing a regulation permitting him to do so or a person who believes that all individual rights must be subordinated to the "collective good" thus making the very notion of personal freedom utterly meaningless.
See, I don't argue like that because such a person might be Lawful but he would certainly not be Good.
Finally, I don't think any of us are asking that you accept our interpretations Furry. What IS clear from these conversations is that the defenders of the new system have to jump through AT LEAST as many intellectual hoops defending it as we did with the old system.
So it has not really "solved" the alignment definition problem, just perpetuated it by burdening another generation of players with conversations like these.
LG is not more "good" than Good, but it is a more solid "good"; in the same way a stone bridge is not more of a bridge than a rope one is....but its just a more solid and resiliant one that will serve its purpose in a more secure and ongoing manner.
What is the primary purpose of a bridge? To get us to the other side in the safest and most efficient way possible. The stone bridge accomplishes that goal in a "better" fashion than the rope one. Hence, it is a "better" bridge. Following your analogy to its logical conclusion would then make LG a "better" Good than Good.
As someone said though (it may have been in another thread, somedays I lose track :D ) it would have been less confusing to go for a "Good, Unaligned or Evil" approach to alignment...
Yes.
Hey, I was only using your own chosen terminology for people espousing a CG set of ideals, at least as I elaborated them in my penultimate post. As for the "slave owner" thing, I will refrain from getting into a long-winded discussion about this historical topic, aside from stipulating that, whatever their individual faults (and they had many) without the collective effort of the four men I mentioned (among others) to put some important ideas on paper, the human race might still be saddled with a wide-ranging system of slavery.
Every civilization practiced slavery. Only a few select people questioned it.
The point is that these guys are not “hippies” and were not particular exponents of CG.
On the DoI thing, as both Kenji implied and Picard explicitly stated, CG would not mean a belief in no laws. You insist on defining "chaotic" in its absolutely most extreme form while resisting the idea that people could do the same for "lawful," i.e. a person who cannot blow his nose without citing a regulation permitting him to do so or a person who believes that all individual rights must be subordinated to the "collective good" thus making the very notion of personal freedom utterly meaningless.
See, I don't argue like that because such a person might be Lawful but he would certainly not be Good.
It kind of depends on what is meant by Good (and, for that matter, Lawful and Chaotic...).
A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) that does Good; which of them opposes it? Neither, because both want Good. A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) which opposes Good; which of them opposes it in turn? Both, because both want Good.
So why the need for a separate division of Goodness? I think we both can agree that one is not needed *unless* one is “more good” than the other. They both want the same thing, so neither will be doing things that oppose Good and both will be doing things that promote Good....so the notion of them doing different opposed things really makes no sense.... The only time it makes sense is if what is being measured is the degree of Good being done (which is a bit of a cop-out, alignment wise).
Better that they made a three tier approach (Good, Unaligned/Neutral and Evil, or Exalted, Worldly and Vile, or Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic – or whichever labels they settled on) than one that just divides what should not, logically speaking, *be* divided.
But that *does* require a more meaningful notion of Good than is provided under the human-centric “kindness and liberty” tag currently attributed to “Good”. Personally, I'd have preferred to see one with a bit more continuity with the 3.x approach; hence my idea on Good being about loyalty to behaving in a noble manner over actual impact on people (so, Truth, Modesty, Temperance, Justice etc), Neutral being about “tribal” loyalty to loved ones and family/nation etc with personal attachments, and Evil being about being loyalty to self above all else.
Boulis,
The point is that these guys are not “hippies” and were not particular exponents of CG.
It kind of depends on what is meant by Good (and, for that matter, Lawful and Chaotic...).
A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) that does Good; which of them opposes it? Neither, because both want Good. A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) which opposes Good; which of them opposes it in turn? Both, because both want Good.
Which is a fine argument till you come to less than black and white siterations.. there often times when a CG and a LG idea of whats "good" can be very different.
A just kingdom (led by a lawfull good king) court has been infiltrated by a infernalist who plot to open a portal to hell soonish inside the kings castle.
The lawfull good way
Find the king and try to persade him that there evil in his castle
The chaotic good way
Infortrate the castle yourself and kill/expose the infernalist.
To give a example...
A just kingdom (led by a lawfull good king) court has been infiltrated by a infernalist who plot to open a portal to hell soonish inside the kings castle.
The lawfull good way
Find the king and try to persade him that there evil in his castle
The chaotic good way
Infortrate the castle yourself and kill/expose the infernalist.
Either an act is Good (in which case, both LG and CG will promote it) or is not Good (in which case, both LG and CG will oppose it)..... of course that requires a clear understanding of what "Good" actually is....
A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) that does Good; which of them opposes it? Neither, because both want Good. A CG and a LG person come across a Law(ful thing) which opposes Good; which of them opposes it in turn? Both, because both want Good.
You take this almost out far enough. A CG and an LG person come across a Law(ful thing) that restricts their ability to travel freely as there are those about who are eager to harm the local Cleric House (TM). Which of the two would be most likely to oppose this Law(ful thing)? Obviously the CG person would be the most outspoken for the Law(ful thing) to be abolished as it restricts personnal freedom.
Well that was a little lame, but I think it illustrates a point.
You take this almost out far enough. A CG and an LG person come across a Law(ful thing) that restricts their ability to travel freely as there are those about who are eager to harm the local Cleric House (TM). Which of the two would be most likely to oppose this Law(ful thing)? Obviously the CG person would be the most outspoken for the Law(ful thing) to be abolished as it restricts personnal freedom.
Well that was a little lame, but I think it illustrates a point.
How does that counter what I said?
Chaotic good character often distrust authority and they prize freedom, as in freedom for all as well as using methods that work "on the fly"
Lawfull good character, often love setting up authorities, follow the rules and are hardly eager to break them.
LG character go thought the proper channels, do things by the book and follow leaders who have the correct authority over them.
CG character go through whatever channels the think will get the job done, do whatever they think is right and follow leaders who they believe are the best to follow.
Sometimes character can see eye to eye on subjects and take the same course of action, but there motives for doing so can sometimes be rather different.
i.e a lawfull good character following a leader because he's a general of his realm, while a chaotic good character follows him because he once saved his little sister.
It basically summed up as Lawfull = trusting the system and chaotic = trusting yourself.
...that being, that all Good characters, whether L or C, will support Good and avoid non-Good. You seem to be suggesting that there can be more than one definition of Good - which makes no sense
I think you may be missing the point though....
...that being, that all Good characters, whether L or C, will support Good and avoid non-Good. You seem to be suggesting that there can be more than one definition of Good - which makes no sense
Yip they can be.
Simple example.
One guy idea of being good is to put you in a now secure pocket plane.
Another to give your a bigger sword! :D
Both being good.. but they be very upset if there heard what the others way of doing things were.
Heck you can even character of the same type of good have seriously diffrence options on things, consider the way followers of the Triad can disagree...
Yip they can be.
Simple example.
One guy idea of being good is to put you in a now secure pocket plane.
Another to give your a bigger sword! :D
Both being good.. but they be very upset if there heard what the others way of doing things were.
Heck you can even character of the same type of good have seriously diffrence options on things, consider the way followers of the Triad can disagree...
sorry, but if all those things are good then the good person will agree with them regardless of their being L or C...
Since the only difference of any importance is that LG still exists.
Now, if you were arguing over the differences between Lawful Good and Good, that would make sense.
And probably be pretty much the same argument.
And with that, I bid you farewell.
Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven...
(PS - Furryhowler: I can't believe you were right. Order DOES equal harmony. Congratulations. :D )
sorry, but if all those things are good then the good person will agree with them regardless of their being L or C...
But what if there option A or B and you got a group which contains a mix?
Also you got to remember while the fight between good and evil is typicaly rather open, the fight between chose and law is often a subtler matter and more personal matter.
Okay, first of all, the difference between LG and CG is completely irrelevant in a discussion of 4e alignment.
Since the only difference of any importance is that LG still exists.
Now, if you were arguing over the differences between Lawful Good and Good, that would make sense.
And probably be pretty much the same argument.
And with that, I bid you farewell.
Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven...
(PS - Furryhowler: I can't believe you were right. Order DOES equal harmony. Congratulations. :D )
CE and NG are basicly good now by the way (same with LE and NE) course in my option that just make the alignment more vague. Also just becuses the boxses are less well defined, doesn't me that all the characters mindset and ethics sudenly don't ever disagree.
The new alignment system, if you accept its premises, makes reasonable sense with only CE, E, G, LE, and U as alignments.
If you reject the premises of either, however, then they don't make sense.
In 3.5, everyone had an alignment, in the same sense that everyone had a height. Some beings are short, some tall, some average, and some had a height that could change, but no one was, at any given time "heightless."
On the other hand, in 4e, having an alignment is more like having a coat of arms. Most people don't have a coat of arms (unaligned). Some people do. Coats of arms follow certain rules. You don't have to have a coat of arms that fits you, because you don't have to have a coat of arms period like you have to have a height.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of either system's alignment, but I don't think that either way is incoherent.
To reiterate a few points that seem to be getting lost in the shuffle:
1) The reason why CG was even brought up as an issue for discussion is because the proponents of the new alignment system have defended the current rationale of keeping LG but combining NG and CG into the new "Good" by stating that L and G are *obviously* a great "fit" but C and G are not. Therefore, it is correct that WotC kept LG but tossed CG, or at least adulterated it by folding it into this new amalgam called "Good."
I, and those others who had no problem understanding how C and G fit well together, have been arguing why we think this rationale is flawed by defending the coherency of CG.
(As an aside, the same applies to the decision to keep CE but combine LE and NE into this new alignment "evil.")
However, even if we choose to disagree over these issues, I have tried to make an added, perhaps even more significant, point:
Defending the "rationale/philosophy" behind the new alignment system involves trotting out as many questionable and often idiotic assumptions and going through as many rhetorical hoops as defending the "rationale" behind the old alignment system did. Therefore, if the express purpose of the new system was to end the confusion over alignment and what it means, it is already an abject failure.
*Oh and just to repeat so we don't forget: personally, I LOVE pretty much everything else about 4e!
2) I can't speak for anyone else but I actually think that the invention of the new alignment "Unaligned" is THE BEST THING about the new alignment system. It allows one to choose (even if you choose not to choose) rather than having to swallow something it says on your character sheet; something you yourself might not completely understand or might disagree with your DM about should not be something you are forced to play. That is why most people hated alignment so I think this is certainly a step in the right direction.
.... perhaps even more significant, point:
Defending the "rationale/philosophy" behind the new alignment system involves trotting out as many questionable and often idiotic assumptions and going through as many rhetorical hoops as defending the "rationale" behind the old alignment system did. Therefore, if the express purpose of the new system was to end the confusion over alignment and what it means, it is already an abject failure.
*Oh and just to repeat so we don't forget: personally, I LOVE pretty much everything else about 4e!
2) I can't speak for anyone else but I actually think that the invention of the new alignment "Unaligned" is THE BEST THING about the new alignment system. It allows one to choose (even if you choose not to choose) rather than having to swallow something it says on your character sheet; something you yourself might not completely understand or might disagree with your DM about should not be something you are forced to play. That is why most people hated alignment so I think this is certainly a step in the right direction.
I think it would be better if they (WOTC) had changed the labels a bit....
ON the whole CG begs to be an extreme allignment. It is the Chaos vs Law that causes this. True some people are more balanced in their approach, as well as they should and it was intended, but the problems here are created by the Law vs Chaos spectrum.
If, as argued, CG wouldn't oppose laws that were just, such that they wouldn't oppose "Freedom of Speech" then the Law vs Chaos becaomes redundant, as LG should also support Good laws such as this.
The point being that the two opposing allignments, caused by Law vs Chaos, creates the extremes, of "what is CG but extreme?"
The new allignment system has just said "lets do away with unneeded extremes"
Sure not all Good people agree with how that good should be accomplished, a Lawful Good person might think that Freedom of Speech is fine but that some censorship should be in place to protect the people, another says that Freedom of Speach should be absolute and that censorship only oppresses and does little to stop Evil, indeed it encourages it to be done, only just secretly.
Both however are good, The problem with CG is that it labels the person as opposing the Law, which means to the LG person can be against the law protecting the Freedom of Speech. (which shouldn't be the case) It sets up the extreme.
The position, the proper position, of CG still is there, it is now not obscured by a tag, Chaotic, meaning it is opposed to Lawful Good. Which is not the intent of the orriginal allignment. Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good is generally always a mistake taken to an extreme and thus CH was deemed unneeded.
It's not that CG went away, it just simply isn't taged as being Specifically opposed to LG.
The Declaration of Independence was used as an example above. And it is a classic example of the frivolity of CG vs LG. England was a Constitutionally protected, Democratically elected government that valued personal freedom, long before the American colonists revolted and wrote the declaration of independence, declaring the rights that ALREADY WERE PROTECTED by the british constitution.
England btw, had outlawed Slavery, and it's navy was patroling the coasts of Africa trying to stop the illegal Slave Trade. And a Slave who stepped upon English Soil or a English ship was immediatly declared free.
Not that england didn't have it's faults or mishandled it's colonies, but it was a completey unnecessary. The point being here that LG and CG shouldn't be set against each other, which the old allignment system often did. The removal of the extreme and somewhat vague end gives the Good allignment alot more coherency. CG exists still but isn't tagged as Chaotic and thus isn't opposed by LG.
Lawful Good & Good works better than the old version because the law/chaos axis creates a suggestion of opposition - a conflict which completely misses the goal of "Good" at all. Now, Lawful Good is simply a form of Good rather than a cause of division.
Similarly, Evil and Chaotic Evil are more or less the same. The main difference is that Evil is "people suffer for my profit" and Chaotic Evil is "I profit for people to suffer."
Attitudes towards laws have been fixed as well. Now Lawful Good is officially obligated to challenge unjust authority, and Good is no longer expected to be wild/unruly in order to challenge unjust authority. I have heard the idea that non-Chaotic characters are somehow disallowed from opposing tyrants. :| Similarly, I have know people misconstrue Lawful Good as being oppressive and cruel (which misses the point of being Lawful Good).
Biggest problem I find with Chaotic Good is being used as "Good, but not really" or an 'out' to avoid being held to the same standards as non-chaotic characters. Normally these are reckless to the point of dangerous, taking serious risks with other people's safety, but you can't argue against them being good because they are chaotic.
Making the world better no matter who gets hurt has also been used for Lawful Evil, although that seems more premeditated.Also, removing Chaotic Neutral was wonderful. Anyone fit to play Chaotic Neutral without it being a plexiglass viel over "Chaotic Evil" or "Complete Waste of Effin Time" can do just as good a job with Unaligned.
Lawful Evil is no great loss. Any true villains can be plain Evil and "ruthless but trustworthy" can be Unaligned. Often Lawful Evil is used as "Bearable Evil" - which is playing an evil character without being so unpleasant that they become uncomfortable to play.
In a nutshell, I see Chaotic Good & Lawful Evil being used as "mitigating factors" to dilute the good-evil component of their alignment.
Everyone (broad generalization here) thinks lawful used on the Law-Chaos axis means supporting the laws of the land, and Chaos opposes laws. It is more an approach to life. As in, a Lawful (anything) character is meticulous in his/her planning and proactive. Whereas Chaotic (anything) is more willing to wing it and reactive. So if WOTC had set the new system up with the terms proactive/reactive or maybe planning/winging it instead of law/chaos, things may have been better. (And if we really want to point fingers let us say that if TSR had done it.) If this had been used in either alignment system it would have been less confusing, and maybe the new system would be unnecessary.
What is so disappointing about them changing the system like this is that they are making things dumber and dumberer. People don't see the danger in this. If you make things so easy even an Idiot can do it, then you get Idiots doing it and ruining your intellegent play. And no-one really wants this...
It would appear that the biggest problem about either of the alignment systems is that the definitions are not well layed out in a manner such as to avoid confusion. I agree that the "tag", "label", or "ID card" of each line was not the best choice of words.
Everyone (broad generalization here) thinks lawful used on the Law-Chaos axis means supporting the laws of the land, and Chaos opposes laws. It is more an approach to life. As in, a Lawful (anything) character is meticulous in his/her planning and proactive. Whereas Chaotic (anything) is more willing to wing it and reactive. So if WOTC had set the new system up with the terms proactive/reactive or maybe planning/winging it instead of law/chaos, things may have been better. (And if we really want to point fingers let us say that if TSR had done it.) If this had been used in either alignment system it would have been less confusing, and maybe the new system would be unnecessary.
What is so disappointing about them changing the system like this is that they are making things dumber and dumberer. People don't see the danger in this. If you make things so easy even an Idiot can do it, then you get Idiots doing it and ruining your intellegent play. And no-one really wants this...
Personaly I think the following be better alignment titles and descriptions..
Conforming good
Conforming good believes that people need a strong and just system of rules to follow that both protects them and keep them happy. They often work within systems to slowly change them towards a just one.
They also often have complex ranking system of authority, with lower ranks following the orders of those who are of higher ranks. While Higher rank consider fulfilling the needs and protecting the lower ranks there duty.
Getting promoted into higher ranks is often based on merit and the ability to carry out the higher ranks duties.
Typically conforming good characters can be found deep within most complicated system of people, be it government, law, business or armed forces.
Conforming unaligned.
Conforming unaligned believes that first and foremost the things should be organized and find the idea of life without it quiet terrifying. As a result they typically go about the jobs with some efficiency.
While the clearly prefer a just government to a tyranny, they are quiet willing to put up with a tyrant as a leader, as long as there not asked to do things of a truly evil intention.. or at least not too often and without some justification.
Most industrious worker and guards fall into conforming unaligned.
Conforming evil
Conforming believes first and foremost that society should be organized and that it should benefit them. While they are selfish people, they only act on such a desires if they can justify it to them self, often via laws or codes.
As a result the often try to change or abuse law system and often change them into form that can mislead a casual reader.
Conforming evil is often found abusing the system in most orgnisations, but it also the alignment of the religious zealot and cultist who use divine (often evil) or connection to some other powerful being as justification..
Unaligned good
Unaligned good believes first and foremost that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The exact way this is done is not terribly important to them and are quiet willing to work with or against the system, based on the siteration in hand.
However there typically wary of both too much control in a few high ups and too little control in anyone hands.
Most unaligned good character can be found in various positions, prefaring ones that let them help people.
Unaligned
Unaligned characters don't really strongly believe in any one thing, but instead have a tendency to focus on what near and dear them, rather than any big picture. As a result they can be found in most places and groups.
They have a tendency to avoid doing truly evil acts, but are unlikely to do something which doesn't really benefit them or a someone they care about.
The average commoner is unaligned, as is the adventurer who follow his friends wherever there adventures take them.
Unaligned evil
Unaligned evil believes first and foremost that thing that don't benfit them are unimportant and things that do are. As a result everything they do is to help them selfs (either now or latter) and care little for others.
In a similar way to unaligned good, unaligned evil can be found in most positions, as long as the position help them of course!
Nonconforming good
Nonconforming good believes first and foremost that people should be happy and free. They strongly dislike strong authority, as they believe that power corrupts and too much power in a few hands in asking for trouble.
As a result they often work towards limiting how much power can be in one pair of hands, rather having councils to single rulers, and checks and balances to ensure no one man or woman got too much power.
The often base there alliances on personal trust rather titles and positions.
Most nonconforming good character prefare position were they can do pretty much what they want, through those who gain power often use such power to ensure that others personal liberties are protected.
Nonconforming unaligned
Nonconforming unaligned characters believe in first and foremost that there and there loved ones personal liberties are important. They also have a tendency to be expressive creative people.
As result most nonconforming unaligned can be found in positions that let them express them selfs freely and with little worry of answering to others.
Hence many become artists, journalists, writers,mercenaries and criminals
Nonconforming evil
Nonconforming evil believe in first and foremost that they should be allowed to do what they want, when they want to do it and don't care how it effects others.
As a result they often try to find ways to do this without suffering serous consequences, sometimes by banding with others for mutual gain. There naturally are distrustful of authority and frequently try to bring it down so it can no longer "get in the way".
Most nonconforming evil character end up becoming travelers or criminals, often the nastier ones.
I mean how often have you seen or heard about some jackass acting like an idiot and justifying it by a chaotic neutral alignment? The only alignment that caused worse trouble was lawful good, and usually only when accompanied by the word "paladin".
Chaotic neutral was the disruptive players excuse to act evil and random and see how much evil randomness everyone else would put up with before the campaign broke down.
Now it COULD be played right, and Gygax bless you if you played it well without disrupting the game, but for every good player of that alignment, there were 10 that killed games.
They basically rolled neutral evil and lawful evil together. I can see that. Usually when I think lawful evil and neutral evil, I tend to think of it the same way: As evil with reservation. Evil people willing to reel themselves back in order to accomplish greater things for themselves.
I do think you lost an interesting alignment in lawful evil when it came to the concept of a person serving loyally in an evil army or country. But, you can still accomplish that with evil I suppose.
I also used to think of chaotic good and neutral good characters in a similar light. They did good just because it felt natural. No obligation. I never saw any difference between those alignments in my mind.
Now the unaligned alignment got rid of the axis more or less, taking chaotic and lawful and making them simple preferences rather than an actual cosmic force. I support that idea, but can see why people didnt like it.
Whereas you could have had an old LE character who was cruel but favoured a strong order even if it left him a servant rather than a master, now the concept of "laws and order", in the Evil alignment, is seen as a tool towards Self-Aggrandizement. Where, for example, would the knights of Tarkisis fit into the new alignment graph?
*respectfully bandwidth snipped*
I mean how often have you seen or heard about some jackass acting like an idiot and justifying it by a chaotic neutral alignment? The only alignment that caused worse trouble was lawful good, and usually only when accompanied by the word "paladin".
Actually, the line most often used to bring our (blissfully few) LG paladins back to reality, was, "Lawful Good is NOT Lawful Stupid." Our players have generally been bright enough to get the difference without being whacked by the clue-bat. Failing that, the rest of the party looking at him and asking if he REALLY wants to wake up with his plate mail magically colored neon pink, and with interesting potions slipped into his waterskin generally handled the issue.
Yes, though, the chaotic neutrals are generally the ones who required in-party violence to correct.
As written, many people aren't any of the alignments and aren't unaligned either.
For instance, Mohamed Atta wasn't good because he murdered thousands of people. He wasn't evil because evil requires being egotistical and selfish in 4e (there are no longer provisos for "idealistic evil" like the ones at the bottoms of the 3.5 evil alignment descriptions), and Mohamed Atta was extraordinarily unselfish and self-sacrificing. Unaligned, then? Nope -- unaligned means "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill," while Atta obviously did seek to harm others.
I think they ought to have just left unaligned blank, skipping all of the "If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively..." stuff and said "characters who are not of any of the four alignments are unaligned." That way, we could say that Mohamed Atta was unaligned, for instance. It'd be a catch-all for everything that didn't fit in the four-alignment system, rather than being a specific pseudo-alignment of its own.
The problem with the new alignment system, I think, is that the alignments are too narrow. It's not that there need to be more alignments. It's that each alignment -- even unaligned, especially unaligned -- covers too few possibilities.
As written, many people aren't any of the alignments and aren't unaligned either.
For instance, Mohamed Atta wasn't good because he murdered thousands of people. He wasn't evil because evil requires being egotistical and selfish in 4e (there are no longer provisos for "idealistic evil" like the ones at the bottoms of the 3.5 evil alignment descriptions), and Mohamed Atta was extraordinarily unselfish and self-sacrificing. Unaligned, then? Nope -- unaligned means "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill," while Atta obviously did seek to harm others.
I think they ought to have just left unaligned blank, skipping all of the "If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively..." stuff and said "characters who are not of any of the four alignments are unaligned." That way, we could say that Mohamed Atta was unaligned, for instance. It'd be a catch-all for everything that didn't fit in the four-alignment system, rather than being a specific pseudo-alignment of its own.
That would have resulted in (pre-New Hope) Han Solo, Mohammed Atta and Steel Brightblade all being the same alignment - which would not make sense....
That would have resulted in (pre-New Hope) Han Solo, Mohammed Atta and Steel Brightblade all being the same alignment - which would not make sense....
Well, if you go with the current 4e alignments, then there are people who don't fit any of the alignments and don't fit into unaligned as described either. If you expanded unaligned, it could fill in all the cracks. Alternatively, you could increase the scope of the other four alignments.
It wouldn't be so much all of your examples having the same alignment as none of them having alignments.
It's sort of like saying that Mohamed Atta, Han Solo, Steel Brightblade (I presume; haven't read DL novels), and I all have the same Hindu Varna: i.e. "none." The fact that we're all outside of that system doesn't imply that there's some commonality among us, as if "people completely unaffiliated with Hindu society" were a coherent caste within Hinduism like vaishyas or shudras. We just... don't have anything to do with any of that.
However, if you want, you could go with ascribing different alignments to some of them, rather than having them all unaligned. That would probably make most sense with 3.5 alignment.
Well, if you go with the current 4e alignments, then there are people who don't fit any of the alignments and don't fit into unaligned as described either. If you expanded unaligned, it could fill in all the cracks. Alternatively, you could increase the scope of the other four alignments.
It wouldn't be so much all of your examples having the same alignment as none of them having alignments.
It's sort of like saying that Mohamed Atta, Han Solo, Steel Brightblade (I presume; haven't read DL novels), and I all have the same Hindu Varna: i.e. "none." The fact that we're all outside of that system doesn't imply that there's some commonality among us, as if "people completely unaffiliated with Hindu society" were a coherent caste within Hinduism like vaishyas or shudras. We just... don't have anything to do with any of that.
However, if you want, you could go with ascribing different alignments to some of them, rather than having them all unaligned. That would probably make most sense with 3.5 alignment.
The point behind my query was why would WOTC choose to make an alignment set which does not include such archetypal characters as those listed. To me, Unaligned is the alignment of Han Solo (at least, that is, is it is described in the PHB). It does not in any way describe people who are dedicated to an unselfish cause.
The point behind my query was why would WOTC choose to make an alignment set which does not include such archetypal characters as those listed. To me, Unaligned is the alignment of Han Solo (at least, that is, is it is described in the PHB). It does not in any way describe people who are dedicated to an unselfish cause.
Okay, how do you think it should work?
What I meant to say is, if you think 4e alignment is broken, what do you think should be done to fix it? I was under the impression that you were fairly happy with the equation of evil with egotism and good with altruism, but you seem to think there are some holes. How would you fix them? You don't seem to like the idea of just making "unaligned" cover everything not covered by the four other alignments, so what would you do? Add a sixth alignment? More? Rewrite the descriptions of some of the alignments?
Whilst I agree with the general idea of egotistic vrs altruistic, it might make more sense to either simplify or complicate it more - by either paring down what is covered by alignment or bringing back a full 2-pole system...
So, instead, we might have:
Alternative System 1:
Exalted - Lawful - Chaotic
In this, alignment would measure where your chief alliegance and loyalty rests.
With Chaotic, it would be about loyalty to yourself being primary...making this the alignment of the selfish and egotistic. This would be akin to the old general area covered by CN, CE and NE.
Lawful would then be the next thing on the scale of maturity; with alliegance now given to the tribe/clan/corporation/team/platoon/empire/nation over the ego-self. This would be akin to the old LN, with a combination of conformity and social order combined with the social group being defined by the Neutral stance of "personal relationships".
Finally, as the furthest point away from pure egotism, Exalted would be about loyalty to noble principles over any personal or selfish loyalty; so, truth, modesty, justice, temperance, faith, forgiveness, for example, over family ties, corporate duties, egotistic self-aggrandizement etc. This would cover the old area of LG and NG.
Such an approach would comform to the real world more....and would allow "dodgy types" to "act Good" but be using this act for tribal or ego loyalty purposes (whereas the exalted person does not simply use apparent nobility of character as a tool but sees them as inately valuable).
Honestly, I just think they changed the alignment system to get rid of chaotic neutral, a.k.a the campaign ruining alignment.
I mean how often have you seen or heard about some jackass acting like an idiot and justifying it by a chaotic neutral alignment? The only alignment that caused worse trouble was lawful good, and usually only when accompanied by the word "paladin".
Chaotic neutral was the disruptive players excuse to act evil and random and see how much evil randomness everyone else would put up with before the campaign broke down.
Now it COULD be played right, and Gygax bless you if you played it well without disrupting the game, but for every good player of that alignment, there were 10 that killed games.
They basically rolled neutral evil and lawful evil together. I can see that. Usually when I think lawful evil and neutral evil, I tend to think of it the same way: As evil with reservation. Evil people willing to reel themselves back in order to accomplish greater things for themselves.
I do think you lost an interesting alignment in lawful evil when it came to the concept of a person serving loyally in an evil army or country. But, you can still accomplish that with evil I suppose.
I also used to think of chaotic good and neutral good characters in a similar light. They did good just because it felt natural. No obligation. I never saw any difference between those alignments in my mind.
Now the unaligned alignment got rid of the axis more or less, taking chaotic and lawful and making them simple preferences rather than an actual cosmic force. I support that idea, but can see why people didnt like it.
Frankly, this is just a case of blaming a mediocre system for bad players. Those same players will likely make a mockery of 'Unaligned' in the new system. It's not that it could be played properly, more often than not it was played properly. Ass-hat players will be that way no matter what you do, all that changes is how they choose to break your game.
I don't see neutral good and chaotic good as being the same alignment, nor lawful evil and neutral evil. NG and CG are as different as LG and NG. Why not just merge all three? The emphasis on the new system appears to be the fallacy that civilised=organised=good, therefore disorganised=uncivilised=bad.
Essentially, they had the alignments Ludicrously Good, Strives To Be Good, Unconcerned with Morality, Deliberately Shakes Cages, Obsessed With Order, Utterly Selfish, and Chainsaw-Wielding Lunatic. (They didn't use that particular naming system, though.)
Lawful: Very much the attitude of Hobbes, that 'the state of nature' (a world without the restrictions of what Hume called the Leviathan, or the collective will of the governing bodies and religious bodies, and any others that controlled the populous) was by its nature the most horrible and vile thing and worse than any alternative, that a state was NEEDED, no matter how oppressive. There are some elements of Edmund Burke as well, who argued that long established traditions should be kept and observed, that rights were passed on through generations not inherent, and that change to the system should be gradual and natural, if at all. There is also the concept of Positive Liberty here, that people should be made free through rights being ensured (the welfare state, around rights such as "the right to education").
Chaotic: More Anarchistic (and in some areas Communistic), emphasising individual human nature as being fundamentally good (or in this case 'taking us where we should be going' however the character envisages that), and that the restrictions of laws and other persecutions warp the human spirit away from this, perverting it. Also there is a fundamental distrust of authority in general and governments in particular, believing they are self perpetuating systems that by their nature work for their own benefit, not for the peoples; no matter how cleverly they are constructed. There is an element of Millite philosophy here to, the idea of freedom being Negative Liberty, freedom from restriction, and also the idea that great things come from the genii (exceptional individuals), and that they should have the freedom to do such things.
There is a fundamental separation here, arguably more so than Good/Evil (as either side of the debate might well claim adherents to the other were "Evil"). Whether D&D is appropriate to examine this fascinating philosophical divide is a different question, but it is beyond doubt that both are very different from Neutral (which would probably be a more utilitarian philosophy).
Mill: We must close the portal. The risk is too great!
Kant: But we have a duty to the party.
Rand: I'm back! Close it!
Mill: Where's Marx?
Rand: He was a collectivist.
Kant: What do you mean was?
DM: Rocks fall you all die!
It does strike me that you would be better off it you read some political philosophy before thinking about Alignment; otherwise you might find it difficult to understand certain viewpoints.
Lawful: Very much the attitude of Hume, that 'the state of nature' (a world without the restrictions of what Hume called the Leviathan, or the collective will of the governing bodies and religious bodies, and any others that controlled the populous) was by its nature the most horrible and vile thing and worse than any alternative, that a state was NEEDED, no matter how oppressive. There are some elements of Edmund Burke as well, who argued that long established traditions should be kept and observed, that rights were passed on through generations not inherent, and that change to the system should be gradual and natural, if at all. There is also the concept of Positive Liberty here, that people should be made free through rights being ensured (the welfare state, around rights such as "the right to education").
I think you mean Hobbes rather than Hume ;)
In essence, the view of Hobbes was indeed that if we lacked govt we would become as Somalia has been since the early 90's.
Subjectively, alignment makes no sense what-so-ever. Did Hitler really believe that he Evil? Possibly, but certainly not every single Nazi that followed him, some certainly believed that they were acting for the good of the German people, and if the Nazi's had won world war two, and D&D had been invented under a fascist regime, then fascism would be Lawful good.
What the new alignment system takes into account is a world in which Right and Wrong are absolute, objective terms. Civilization, in 4.0, is lawful good period. Chaotic good, or justice outside the rule of law, is inherently not good, because it goes against one of the group which has the power to define what good and evil are. There is still good, that which is just right regardless of whether it goes along with the law, but nothing blatantly against the rule of civil society (which perceives it self as Lawful good), could possibly be good. 4.0 assumes, as a basis, that civilized society is the foundation of the hero's world. Outside of this assumption the new alignment system does not work.
Now personally, I don't even believe in objective truth, but I think this clear cut system for D&D has a lot of potential, even if you want to play in a morally ambiguous campaign. Let's say you want to play a character that is going to be chaotic good. That means you have two choices, you can decide that acting good, as defined by the nearest nexus of civilization is a noble enough value to condone, that you hold your thoughts about freedom in reserve, or you forgo the possibility of being perceived as good, in order to uphold a personal system of values. I have seen a lot of people use the old Robin Hood example to debate the merits of Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil, asking if Robin Hood was truly chaotic because he was working to restore the rule of a Lawful good King. In the 4.0 world presented in the three core books, The big Kingdoms have fallen and the party exists on the fringe of civilization. The Seats of power that currently exist are the only thing that stands between the people and extinction, so guess what, they are Lawful Good. There is no Dispossessed King that is going to come back and make a more Lawful, or more Good society, so the characters have a choice: Champion the rule of law which provides for the Good of all, try to act for the Good of all and accept that ,in this world, good people generally like Laws to live by, not care/uphold some other principles over which the laws of the land are unstated or unconcerned (IE: you can love Nature all you want and civilization is not going to care, as long as your love of nature doesn't bring into conflict with their laws), Act selfishly and except that, if one is still going to exist within a civil society, then one must abide by those laws that one doesn't have the power or authority to break or evade without consequence (EVIL), or Actively work against Civilized Society by promoting the destruction of Law and living one's life only within accordance to one's own will (Chaotic Evil).
As an Anarchist in the real world, I understand that this world view is not representational of the real world, and if it were I would have to consider myself Chaotic Evil. However, in a fantasy world where the Orcs are out to pillage and burn down my home and the home of everyone I know of, and there is nothing that can be said to convince them otherwise, the abstractions of morality in a more complicated world are irrelevant.
I think what really holds people up is that they believe that a good character stands up for principles larger than themselves and and evil character are only concerned with themselves. This is generally true but not the whole D&D story. IN 4.0 it is not enough just to believe in something bigger than themselves in order to be recognized as upholding the highest morals, they must Uphold the same something that the majority of those living in their society also uphold to be recognized as being truly virtuous. To uphold values that one fervently believes are best, but are not recognized as so by the rest of civil society is to play a character who risks being ostracized by that society under the label of Chaotic Evil.
This is what excites me about the new alignment system, even as I recognize it as a serious limitation - There is morally ambiguous territory in D&D 4.0, however it exists only in the character's head unless they can find some way to reconcile that difference with the society with which they interact.
I think you mean Hobbes rather than Hume ;)
In essence, the view of Hobbes was indeed that if we lacked govt we would become as Somalia has been since the early 90's.
Heh, I do indeed. Thank you for the correction.
Frankly, this is just a case of blaming a mediocre system for bad players. Those same players will likely make a mockery of 'Unaligned' in the new system. It's not that it could be played properly, more often than not it was played properly. Ass-hat players will be that way no matter what you do, all that changes is how they choose to break your game.
I agree that the problem was with the players not the system, but unfortunately enough people abused the system that it just wasn't worth it.
NG and CG are as different as LG and NG.
I disagree. Last time I played a CG character, I found myself acting no differently than if I was NG. Only 1 situation did I ever have myself acting differently and that character was played for years.
I disagree. Last time I played a CG character, I found myself acting no differently than if I was NG. Only 1 situation did I ever have myself acting differently and that character was played for years.
Chaotic Good Character actively dislike laws. Even laws that are made in good faith and freely adopted by the people for whom they apply. A Neutral Good character is different because they will generally accept the rule of law and only really protest laws they see as unfair. A chaotic good character will break the law, and encourage others to do so, just to exercise their own freedom as long as doing so will not actively harm another.
A Lawful good character will try not to J walk unless they absolutely have too for the greater good.
A Neutral Good Character will J walk when it is convenient and their action can be done safely for themselves and for everyone else. They will also probably not J-walk when an enforcer of the law is around, because little overall good will be accomplished by forcing a confrontation with another character who is generally there to serve the good of the people.
A Chaotic Good character thinks that only common sense and one's free will should dictate when it is and is not appropriate to cross the street and will do so whenever they feel like it, just so long as their action causes no harm. In fact a chaotic good character might deliberately J-walk in front of a law officer, under circumstances in which it is an otherwise benign act, especially in front of a large crowd, to force the hand of the officer into either letting the act go (and undermining the authority of law in order to avoid a confrontation which could be far more socially destructive), or else have that confrontation and show how officers of the Law are required to place LAW above the common GOOD, and are thus not as good as they would like to believe.
I know my scenario is a bit silly with the J-walking example, but I think it pretty clearly demonstrates how chaotic good is just as different from Neutral good as Lawful Good. And all of this from one who will still defend the abandonment of chaotic good for Dungeons and Dragons 4.0 as necessary for the perseverance of the fantasy world as one of objective absolute morality.
Structure adds depth to a game, but at the same time trying to define the shades of good was a little intrusive.
1st edition: law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group
2nd edition: . Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society
3rd edition: Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, .... and do what they promise if they feel like it
Law = “there is an authority to which I answer.”
1st edition: law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, .... Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual,
2nd edition: order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them
3rd edition: Lawful characters .... respect authority, ...“Law” implies .... obedience to authority
"Chaotic" is the alignment, as someone pointed out, of the Tyrant. The one who claims there is no authority beyond themselves. Strangely though, Tyranny has always been associated with CG and CN's polar opposite of LE and LN......
Chaos = “there is no authority beyond me; what I say goes.”
1st edition: law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group
2nd edition: . Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society
3rd edition: Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, .... and do what they promise if they feel like it
Law = “there is an authority to which I answer.”
1st edition: law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, .... Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual,
2nd edition: order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them
3rd edition: Lawful characters .... respect authority, ...“Law” implies .... obedience to authority
"Chaotic" is the alignment, as someone pointed out, of the Tyrant. The one who claims there is no authority beyond themselves. Strangely though, Tyranny has always been associated with CG and CN's polar opposite of LE and LN......
I think there be better seen as..
Chaos = I don't like or trust authority
Lawfull = There must be a system that we all fall into.
There always someone at the top of every lawful system, but it a just king or a foul tyrant.
There always someone at the top of every lawful system, but it a just king or a foul tyrant.
There is always something at the top...but that can just be a constitution, not necessarily a person.
Chaos doesnt dislike authority; they simply see themselves as the peak authority. Everyone recognises an "authority", even if its only their own desires.
The Traveler
* As his name suggest he's often on the move from place to place
* He doe's so because he like too see everything and anything , he also dislike doing the same thing every day.
* Strongly dislike violence, typically tries to avoid it and takes a strong dislike to those who use it as common solution.
* Has been known to use violence on people who won't stop using it on others however.
* Is very good at bluffing his way through most siterations.
* Often speaks his mind, reguardless of whom he's speaking too
* Travels only with a few trusted friends, and isn't eager to add to the group that often.
* Known for being merciful to even his worse foes.
* Know for causing entire organizations to fall apart who hurt people and don't take his polite hints and advice to change there ways.
* Mostly keeps a low profie.
Here a character for everyone to look at, I want to see what everyone view on his alignment is...
The Traveler
* As his name suggest he's often on the move from place to place
* He doe's so because he like too see everything and anything , he also dislike doing the same thing every day.
* Strongly dislike violence, typically tries to avoid it and takes a strong dislike to those who use it as common solution.
* Has been known to use violence on people who won't stop using it on others however.
* Is very good at bluffing his way through most siterations.
* Often speaks his mind, reguardless of whom he's speaking too
* Travels only with a few trusted friends, and isn't eager to add to the group that often.
* Known for being merciful to even his worse foes.
* Know for causing entire organizations to fall apart who hurt people and don't take his polite hints and advice to change there ways.
* Mostly keeps a low profie.
You forget to mention "only travels in a blue box" :D
ETA....
The question is.... is that the sum total of his values and behaviour...or is he known to follow rules (such as "dont cross your own timestream")? A chaotic character is, literally, a law unto themselves. Their basic description explicitly says "follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, .... and do what they promise if they feel like it", which is juxtaposed with Law's "respect authority, ...[and] .... obedience to authority".... They answer to nothing "higher"; they, themselves, are the peak authority (in their opinion).
This is part of why they are best linked to Evil. Chaotic IS the alignment of the Tyrant.
You forget to mention "only travels in a blue box" :D
ETA....
The question is.... is that the sum total of his values and behaviour...or is he known to follow rules (such as "dont cross your own timestream")? A chaotic character is, literally, a law unto themselves. Their basic description explicitly says "follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, .... and do what they promise if they feel like it", which is juxtaposed with Law's "respect authority, ...[and] .... obedience to authority".... They answer to nothing "higher"; they, themselves, are the peak authority (in their opinion).
This is part of why they are best linked to Evil. Chaotic IS the alignment of the Tyrant.
I brought up the good Doctor because he's a good example that the chaotic idea of trusting your own judgment can be just as easily be connected with being good (as clearly in the Doctors case) as with evil (insert demon of your choice here).
I post a good example of true lawful evil character when I found a good enough one.
To answer your question on does he follow rules, the ones he does seem to follow are ones that breaking would cause great evil of the reality damaging type.. showing the Doctor has a nice healthy wisdom score IMHO.
I brought up the good Doctor because he's a good example that the chaotic idea of trusting your own judgment can be just as easily be connected with being good (as clearly in the Doctors case) as with evil (insert demon of your choice here).
I post a good example of true lawful evil character when I found a good enough one.
To answer your question on does he follow rules, the ones he does seem to follow are ones that breaking would cause great evil of the reality damaging type.. showing the Doctor has a nice healthy wisdom score IMHO.
But does the Doctor actually deny the existence of an authority higher than himself?
But does the Doctor actually deny the existence of an authority higher than himself?
You did not have to think that way to be chaotic in the 3.5 rule set. This in itself would be an extreme point that leaves little room for good. If you apply the same to law it leaves little room for good as well.
Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic
Chaotic IS the alignment of the Tyrant.
Been away for a while but I'm surprised that you still think so Furry, especially after so much discussion on so many threads -- more especially after someone even mentioned Atta just a few posts back.
Torquemada/Robespierre/Bin Laden types are everywhere in the history books. They have some half-cocked notion of what the "perfect world" would look like and are intent on making it a reality. They have a firm idea what the "perfect human" should behave like and attempt to force the rest of us into this mold.
This "Holy Idea" (or set of ideas, usually transcribed in this or that "sacred" or "holy" book) about the universe is their ultimate AUTHORITY. They serve IT wholeheartedly and would gladly sacrifice themselves, their family, friends, random strangers or domestic animals to serve the CAUSE. Following ITS commands, they impose all sorts of wierd and tyrannical rules on their fellow human beings, all in the name of fashioning a "better" world or a "better" human race or attaining some such state of being in some carefully illustrated afterlife.
They are no less tyrants for it. In fact, I would probably say they are the worst sort of tyrants.
And they are most assuredly LAWFUL.
Been away for a while but I'm surprised that you still think so Furry, especially after so much discussion on so many threads -- more especially after someone even mentioned Atta just a few posts back.
Torquemada/Robespierre/Bin Laden types are everywhere in the history books. They have some half-cocked notion of what the "perfect world" would look like and are intent on making it a reality. They have a firm idea what the "perfect human" should behave like and attempt to force the rest of us into this mold.
This "Holy Idea" (or set of ideas, usually transcribed in this or that "sacred" or "holy" book) about the universe is their ultimate AUTHORITY. They serve IT wholeheartedly and would gladly sacrifice themselves, their family, friends, random strangers or domestic animals to serve the CAUSE. Following ITS commands, they impose all sorts of wierd and tyrannical rules on their fellow human beings, all in the name of fashioning a "better" world or a "better" human race or attaining some such state of being in some carefully illustrated afterlife.
They are no less tyrants for it. In fact, I would probably say they are the worst sort of tyrants.
And they are most assuredly LAWFUL.
Its a question regarding tyranny really....are those guys Tyrants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The nature of being a Tyrant, recognising no greater authority than yourself, IS the essence of Chaos. The basic principle that " follow their consciences, resent being told what to do .... do what they promise if they feel like it .... unfettered personal freedom (PHB)" IS the root value of Tyranny's "" a single ruler holding ... absolute power (Wiki)". The essence being, in both cases, a lack of recognition of any authority above the self.
The "holy idea" notion is more often an example of Tribalism; which is an excellent label for 3.x's Neutral (as regards Good and Evil) alignment. Neutral people are "committed to others by personal relationships", which describes tribal/clan/family/national/cultural loyalty very well....and is opposed to both the Egotism of Evil and the Loyalty-to-Higher-Principles of Good.
Those people who are willing to kill others, en masse, and themselves if such is necessary, all for the furthering of their own culture, are *not* Evil; they are Neutral.
Traditionally, the Chaotic character has recognised no authority higher than themselves, whilst the Lawful character recognises something which they must bend to (and indeed, that all should). Evil, meanwhile, is typically interpreted as Egotism....as arch-selfishness, whereas Good conversely is about a loyalty that goes to altruism. To Evil, the world is their to serve their needs, whilst a Good person sees themselves as servant rather than "measure" of the world.
This leaves human-centred values firmly in the non-good camp. Pure selfishness is evil, whilst loyalty to others based on personal relationships (family, tribe, team, city, nation, species) is Neutral (and not LE as the PHB claims).
But does the Doctor actually deny the existence of an authority higher than himself?
"Who are you to declare this?"
"I am the Doctor, and if you want to go to a higher authority you can't, it stops with me."
;)
"Who are you to declare this?"
"I am the Doctor, and if you want to go to a higher authority you can't, it stops with me."
;)
Lol
Well, that marks him out as being highly Chaotic :D but that is a very RTD dialogue.... I recall Tom Baker's Dr questioning whether he has the right to destroy the Daleks in Genesis :D
The current Dr is certainly an egotistical tyrant though; in the definition of the terms, even if he is presented as a "Hero" figure by the script ;) Recognising no higher authority, all that he does is because (in his mind) He wills it to be so and no-one knows better.
Lol
Well, that marks him out as being highly Chaotic :D but that is a very RTD dialogue.... I recall Tom Baker's Dr questioning whether he has the right to destroy the Daleks in Genesis :D
The current Dr is certainly an egotistical tyrant though; in the definition of the terms, even if he is presented as a "Hero" figure by the script ;) Recognising no higher authority, all that he does is because (in his mind) He wills it to be so and no-one knows better.
Proberly a side effect of being very old and very smart. Course I like those episodes of Doctor Who were other character hold up a mirror to the Doctor.. and he doesn't like it
Course it obvious that his intentions are clearly good and the end result of action are mostly good, but its always good to see that he's make mistakes too.
Lol
Well, that marks him out as being highly Chaotic :D but that is a very RTD dialogue.... I recall Tom Baker's Dr questioning whether he has the right to destroy the Daleks in Genesis :D
The current Dr is certainly an egotistical tyrant though; in the definition of the terms, even if he is presented as a "Hero" figure by the script ;) Recognising no higher authority, all that he does is because (in his mind) He wills it to be so and no-one knows better.
Well, he's the last of his race and he knows there is no higher physical authority that is likely to step in and save the day. He has to get it right. That said, he still takes risks, still listens to compassion and still believes in people. Recall that when faced with the options of (a) destroying all of the recreated Dalek species and all the humans on Earth (although not the entire human race) or (b) not wiping them all out and hoping something else stopped the Daleks, he still chose (b) because he would rather be 'coward than murderer' in the words of the Dalek emperor.
Lawful Evil, would just be Evil nowadays. Chaotic Good, would be at best, Good, perhaps more seen though is CG = Unaligned. Our old friend Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Douchebag, can be either Unaligned with a shade of evil, or Evil, if you're intending to be a d-bag.
I was a little sad to see Lawful Neutral go, since that seemed to be my favorite alignment to play for a long time. Nowadays I'd have no problem seeing the former LN dude as unaligned, depending on his personal code may or may not incline him to the side of 'good' or even 'lawful good' but if the code is self-serving, I'd have no problems with unaligned.
...recognising no greater authority than yourself, IS the essence of Chaos...*snip*...The essence being, in both cases, a lack of recognition of any authority above the self.
But the people I mentioned above (among many others) do recognize an authority above themselves. It is to whatever "greater" Law they are beholden to.
As for your "personal relationship" theory: this is a conceptual stretch beyond the limits of the plausible when we are referring to "imagined communities" like tribes, nations, or whole cultures. For example, saying I have a "personal" relationship with someone in Alabama (I live very far from there) simply by virtue of the fact that this person, like me, resides in the Unites States, borders on the ludicrous.
Moreover, when applied to religion or the question of "higher principles" the "personal relationship" theory goes beyond the ludicrous into the realm of the utterly incoherent. "Furthering their culture?" I don't think such people think in those terms - in fact, I'm fairly certain they might laugh themselves to death if you described their "project" that way (one solution to getting rid of religious/ideological tyrants I suppose).
For people such as these, the real goal is to subject everyone to the highest authority of all: that IDEA (be it God or a set of principles, or both) that is the true SOURCE of all ephemeral, man-made Laws.
Keeping such things in mind might prevent us from making preposterous statements like the following:
Those people who are willing to kill others, en masse, and themselves if such is necessary, all for the furthering of their own culture, are *not* Evil; they are Neutral.
Any kind of justification for mass slaughter based on the furthering of something as nebulous as "culture" (whatever that actually means) can only be defined as evil. If you don't believe that to be the case, I think we might want to switch the focus of this conversation from the L/C axis to the G/E axis, or better yet end the discussion in an amicable way, since that statement leads me to think that our values are so divergent that further dialogue is useless and can profit no one.
But the people I mentioned above (among many others) do recognize an authority above themselves. It is to whatever "greater" Law they are beholden to.
Their own claims that they recognise a higher authority do not mean that they *do* recognise such.....
As for your "personal relationship" theory: this is a conceptual stretch beyond the limits of the plausible when we are referring to "imagined communities" like tribes, nations, or whole cultures. For example, saying I have a "personal" relationship with someone in Alabama (I live very far from there) simply by virtue of the fact that this person, like me, resides in the Unites States, borders on the ludicrous.
Actually, you'll find just such "imagined communities" are the source of Patriotism, Religion Solidarity etc, where some people perceive a personal relationship with others they may never have met.
Any kind of justification for mass slaughter based on the furthering of something as nebulous as "culture" (whatever that actually means) can only be defined as evil. If you don't believe that to be the case, I think we might want to switch the focus of this conversation from the L/C axis to the G/E axis, or better yet end the discussion in an amicable way, since that statement leads me to think that our values are so divergent that further dialogue is useless and can profit no one.
The fact that something is not "Good" does not mean it is automatically "Evil". When the soldiers who fought in the Somme and other such battles of WWI chose to go to battle, it was because of a drive for patriotism that was used by their Officers to motivate them. Did this make them Evil? Not in my book; and certainly not when that book would be the PHB. Bare in mind that neither England nor the US were in danger of invasion in WWI yet both went to war...
"Evil" is an alignment best left for egotism, giving Neutral its rightful place for nationalism/tribalism/patriotism/family-loyalty-first. There have been some recent examples of this discussed in the press over here; where the question was raised over whether you 'grass' a relative who commits a crime. In Neutrality, family loyalty comes first (especially when the crime is done 'for' the family's benefit). Good would give loyalty to Justice over family.
The fact that something is not "Good" does not mean it is automatically "Evil". When the soldiers who fought in the Somme and other such battles of WWI chose to go to battle, it was because of a drive for patriotism that was used by their Officers to motivate them. Did this make them Evil? Not in my book; and certainly not when that book would be the PHB. Bare in mind that neither England nor the US were in danger of invasion in WWI yet both went to war...
Invasion no, but they DID suffer from attacks upon their trade routes. The US entered the war because of the loss of life - especially civilians - to U-boat depredations. Great Britain entered because of the alliances she was party to - with Russia and France, specifically. The land-based contribution of Britain to the war was small initially, but grew as the war progressed.
WWI was basically started by a hot-head and escalated by generosity. If ever there was a more pointless way to kill a few million men, that war was it. In the end the deciding factors were not the battles and the blood-letting, but the blockades and sanctions. If those running the war in London and Paris had understood this more and relied upon patriotism less, the entire war could have been much less costly.
"Evil" is an alignment best left for egotism, giving Neutral its rightful place for nationalism/tribalism/patriotism/family-loyalty-first. There have been some recent examples of this discussed in the press over here; where the question was raised over whether you 'grass' a relative who commits a crime. In Neutrality, family loyalty comes first (especially when the crime is done 'for' the family's benefit). Good would give loyalty to Justice over family.
Evil is as evils does. Most soldiers kill not for patriotism, loyalty or honour (although these may be the reasons they are soldiers to begin with), they kill because if they don't the man on the other side will kill them. In effect, even in attack a a soldier is killing in self defence.
Now let's take WWII as an example. SS battalions that worked behind the lines of the German army culling Russian peasants and sending Jews to the gas chambers would also justify their actions as protecting their culture, defending their homeland, and doing good for the world. I don't think anyone can doubt that what they were doing was evil; even though they may have earnestly believed it was for the greater good. Defending your culture, your nation, your rights is something we all have a duty to do, but we must be aware that killing is fundamentally wrong, you do only what you have to do and no more. That is 'neutral'. When you go beyond that, when you deliberately seek the deaths of people simply because of idealogical differences - especially people who cannot defend themselves - then you have strayed into evil.
Evil is as evils does.
Sound good to me.
In this debate I would like to point out that evil and chaotic evil gods have clerics and paladins that follow the dictates of that religion.
Also evil angels and archons follow the gods (evil ones) and primordials respectively.
Evil is as evils does. Most soldiers kill not for patriotism, loyalty or honour (although these may be the reasons they are soldiers to begin with), they kill because if they don't the man on the other side will kill them. In effect, even in attack a a soldier is killing in self defence.
That is like saying someone who breaks into your house is then killing you in self-defence if you try to shoot them to protect your family
Now let's take WWII as an example. SS battalions that worked behind the lines of the German army culling Russian peasants and sending Jews to the gas chambers would also justify their actions as protecting their culture, defending their homeland, and doing good for the world. I don't think anyone can doubt that what they were doing was evil; even though they may have earnestly believed it was for the greater good. Defending your culture, your nation, your rights is something we all have a duty to do, but we must be aware that killing is fundamentally wrong, you do only what you have to do and no more. That is 'neutral'. When you go beyond that, when you deliberately seek the deaths of people simply because of idealogical differences - especially people who cannot defend themselves - then you have strayed into evil.
I doubt many people would disagree that what they did was "wrong", but was it "Evil"? A great many bad things are done under the cover of tribal loyalty....
Defending your culture, your nation, your rights is something we all have a duty to do
To "Neutral" people it is..... To Good people its principles that count, not personal relationships....
Their own claims that they recognise a higher authority do not mean that they *do* recognise such.....
Semantical nonsense plain and simple. So what you're saying is you don't believe their claims when they tell you why they choose to act the way they do? What makes you better qualified to judge their reasons than they themselves are?
Actually, you'll find just such "imagined communities" are the source of Patriotism, Religion Solidarity etc, where some people perceive a personal relationship with others they may never have met.
Religious or ideological motivation based on a utopian political agenda go far beyond the boundaries of loyalty to the in-group or tribe since these ideas are, in the case of the major monotheistic religions and most modern "isms" (like communism), perceived to be universally applicable, i.e., their adherents believe that they can be applied to the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. Stretching the concept of tribal loyalty to cover the entire planet once gain goes beyond the limits of coherency into the realm of utter nonsense.
As for your WWI example: I am not going to get into some ultimately irresolvable historical debate over which side or other was fighting for "good" or "evil." These sorts of examples tend to always devolve into meaningless relativistic claptrap where one person invariably starts to say this side was no more right than this side, etc. Suffice to say, it is, as you seem to be implying, most of the time very difficult to play "spot the bad guy" in instances of historical conflict.
Most of the time...not ALL of the time.
p.s. Oh, and you are correct: many things are done "under the cover of tribal loyalty." Some good, some not so good, some downright EVIL.
Semantical nonsense plain and simple. So what you're saying is you don't believe their claims when they tell you why they choose to act the way they do? What makes you better qualified to judge their reasons than they themselves are?
People lie.
People also misunderstand.
Better to look at what is said and done, and how, and make a judgement based upon that than to place your belief in the claims made.
Religious or ideological motivation based on a utopian political agenda go far beyond the boundaries of loyalty to the in-group or tribe since these ideas are, in the case of the major monotheistic religions and most modern "isms" (like communism), perceived to be universally applicable, i.e., their adherents believe that they can be applied to the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. Stretching the concept of tribal loyalty to cover the entire planet once gain goes beyond the limits of coherency into the realm of utter nonsense.
Not at all; but bare in mind we are discussing within DnD3 parameters.....
Tribal loyalty is loyalty to other people because of personal reasons (rather than the impersonal reasons that Good furthers). This is Neutral in DnD. How is it this can all be fitted with an enforced ideology? Simple; the ideology is just a mask worn by tribalism to generate a veneer of something that goes beyond nepotism and partizan loyalties.
A common theme I read as i started following this thread today...Im new to the message boards...is that lawful good is "more good" than just good and as the opposite chaotic evil is "more evil", and there have been a lot of good arguments as to why that is not true.
Concider this if you will...the three things that Superman fights for...TRUTH, JUSTICE, and THE AMERICAN WAY. I know that it has changed in recent years but if we just look at that phrase...why say ...and "the american way"? I know the real world reasons behind that evolution, but if we just look at the wording...it infers that truth and justice are not part of the american way.
In the same way we say Lawful Good to seperate it from just good, because the normal state of lawful is to be oppressive so when it is good we need to distinguish it. Chaotic on the other hand is often assosiated with freedom...a good thing...so we have to draw attention to Chaotic Evil, Freedom used to a evil end.
So my Alingment continuim would be
G---LG---CE----E
U
I like the Unaligned...but i keep it seperate in my continuim...its not in my opinion a between good and evil alignment. It is for those who are so desperate that morality means nothing to them....or those who are beyond alignments....Gods and the like.
I cannot agree with this. Much evil does indeed originate in selfish behavior. Much, but not all.
It seems almost a historical truism to in fact make the opposite point: most instances of mega-collective evil (historical crimes that have claimed millions of casualties) have originated in "selfless" attempts to impose a utopian vision of perfection on the poor, imperfect human race.
Those who claim to have the Truth have to shove it down our throats: a very selfless act. "I know what will solve all our problems" -- the usual solution being to wipe out this or that group that is standing in the way of "progress."
A person's preference for the 4e alignment system is wholly dependent on whether you accept 4e's "points of light" premise.
Under the "points of light" system, good people concentrate with other good people. This includes the player characters. To maintain that concentration, the people within each "point of light" must interact in a mutually acceptable manner. A mutually agreeable manner of interaction between people is the core definition of law.* So whether a "point of light" has government or written law, its very nature requires that its people gravitate towards Lawfulness.
Where Lawfulness allows concentrations, Chaos disperses. Chaotic characters resist Laws, that is to say, Chaotic characters resist mutually acceptable manners of interaction. A truly Chaotic character necessarily rejects Rousseau's Social Contract. Because a Chaotic Good character naturally draws away from and thereby disperses the concentration of good people, their behavior is antithetical to 4e's "points of light" premise.
(In contrast, a lawful evil character would negate rather than disperse the "point of light.")
As for my own opinion, I find 4e's "points of light" premise to be artificially limiting both philosophically and practically. It is philosophically limiting in that it assumes that Evil characters cannot interact with others. Since Godwin's Law has already been violated, I'll make the Nazi analogy. The Nazi Party was indisputably Evil. But as a concentration of people operating from mutually accepted premises (albeit only from within its own ranks), it was also Lawful.
The 4e "points of light" premise is practically limiting because it is the player's decision as to how dark his adventure world should be, not Wizard's. Because everything in 4e builds upon the "points of light" premise, players are railroaded into playing in one atmospheric setting.
As a home rule, I revise 4e's "points of light" premise using the expansive 3.5 system. I still like the idea that Goodness should be isolated and vastly outnumbered by the Evil surrounding it. It makes finding the adventure easy and the need for Heroes blatant. But, I do not limit a "point of light" to where Good/Lawful Good people concentrate. Instead, a "point of light" could either be a concentration of Good/Lawful Good NPCs, or a singularly powerful Chaotic Good NPC holding his own in the wilderness. Similarly, "depths of darkness" exist in the form of concentrations of Evil/Lawful Evil NPCs or singularly powerful Chaotic Evil NPCs.
*Law as defined here is distinguished from natural law and codified law. Natural law is the inherent and unalterable rules of the universe. E.g. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Codified law, also known as written or statutory law, is the tool societies use to manifest their mutually agreeable manners of interaction. E.g. If a society collectively frowns upon incest, it may manifest its nascent disapproval into code form which expressly describes the punishment for anyone engaging in incest. Or it may not. Most societies disapprove of incest, but even in a society without codified laws prohibiting the act, incest is still punished because the society has implicit laws against it. Thus, codified law is a subset of the law I'm defining here.