According to the PHB, Unaligned characters “ you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others ”(p 20).
Compare this with the section on Evil, which says “ Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want. Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. ”(p20).
Spot the difference?
I'll take it a point at a time.
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
Unaligned: You support law and order when doing so benefits you
Evil: Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain
Unaligned: You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others
Evil: They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom
Now, it may just be me....but the difference between those two stances can be measured with a human hair or a politician's conscience! The only difference, to me, is that Evil actually goes on to 'unpack' what their (common) attitude means in reality, whilst Unaligned remains quiet on the matter.....
I was of the impression that Evil characters (and Good characters) had made an active choice in their alignment and gone out of their way to establish their allegiance to a particular cause or concept. Probably they didn't get up one morning and say "From this day forward I shall be eeeeevil", but probably they have, for example, sworn allegiance to an Evil deity (or worse, a Demon Prince) or joined an organization with an actively evil agenda. Unaligned characters, on the other hand, haven't given any such thought to such metaphysical "big picture" ideas of morality, instead worrying more about pragmatism and doing what comes naturally to them.
So they both act in the same way; the difference is that Evil bods are deliberately cultivating that behaviour whilst Unaligned folks are inherently so
...
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
You forgot to include the bolded part of the sentence on evil, which is a crucial difference. An evil character is perfectly happy hurting people and is, while he doesn't necessarilly hurt people ALL the time, quite willing to actively harm others if he thinks it will benefit him. Compare that to an unaligned person who simply doesn't like to actively harm other people at all.
For instance, an evil character will gladly sadistically kick beggars in the street and enslaving orphans if it somehow helps him achieve his goals. An evil character will rob a merchant if he thinks it is worth the effort. An unaligned person won't actively do those things.
Unaligned: You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others
Evil: They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom
Again, there's a crucial difference here. Evil people are perfectly happy actively enslaving other people. By comparison an unaligned person's attitude is "I sure hope that press gang goes after that other guy and not me!" The unaligned person isn't actively trying to enslave other people; he just wants to live his own life in peace.
So I think I can kind of sum it up like this:
Unaligned people are willing to stand by and watch other people commit evil acts, but they have enough empathy toward other people that they don't go around actively harming other people. They might feel sorry for that poor guy getting robbed across the street, but they'd probably rather not get involved if it looks dangerous.
Evil people, though, commit evil acts. They have basically no empathy toward others and see other people as just objects to be used toward their own personal gain. They will without hesitation actively go out and harm other people if it helps them get what they're after.
Also, you're underestimating the flexibility of Unaligned. All Unaligned really means is that you aspire to something that is not on the good-evil axis-for animals, "A meal.", for example.
Erathis, for instance, is unaligned, but that's because the concept she embodies, civilization, can be seen as a positive or negative force in the world. While her description and personality would lead towards the good side of the spectrum, the ideals she embodies are not effected by the pull between good and evil, so she's off the alignment board.
Generally, when deciding if a character is aligned or not, my test is, "What will he(or she) put himself at risk for?". If the answer is, "I'll commit a crime to further my own goals.", fella's probably Evil. If the answer is, "I'll risk my life to help someone out of a jam.", probably Good. If the answer is, "I might be tempted to do either, but ultimately I don't want to die, I've got a family to support.", Unalignedsville. It's not a perfect system, but it's good enough for government work and quick decision making.
If you look at Evil and Unaligned in the new 4th Ed Alignments, you may notice a striking similarity; I did.
This is why I think for myself when it comes to alignment in D&D. 4e alignment is intentionally vague, so if you want clarity you're going to have to make your own judgments. If you want an example of slightly more defined alignments, see the first link in my sig.
TS
This seems to indicate that Unaligned have the ability to not care about Good or Evil and do what they believe is right to accomplish their goals. Further they could take the approach of balance in which they think both good and evil need to exist together (the whole without one there is no other).
A man gets mugged in an alleyway in broad daylight. People of all sorts are walking by less than 20' away. Few people even glace toward the pair, even though the victim is shouting for help. An "upstanding citizen" might contact the authorities, if they don't have to go too far out of their way to find the closest station. But nobody stops to actually interfere.
The mugger is Evil (perhaps even Chaotic Evil): he was perfectly willing to cause harm to get what he wanted.
Everyone else, however, put their heads down, looked the other way, and went home to complain at dinner about the state of the world and why doesn't the King do something about such rabble. Why didn't they step up? The excuses are many: "It's not my place."; "Too dangerous."; "I have my own family to look after." But the core truth is they lack the conviction to make the stand, to put their own safety on the line. The risk - which could range from a black eye to death - simply isn't worth the reward - which in all probability would be nothing more than a sincere and heart-felt "thank you" from the victim.
Heroes and Villains have convictions. Heroes are some stripe of Good. Villains are some flavor of Evil. Ol' Joe Commoner down at the tavern, minding the stall in the market, or tending the fields? He's Unaligned.
This seems to indicate that Unaligned have the ability to not care about Good or Evil and do what they believe is right to accomplish their goals.
Some do, but it's a tough line to walk. Eventually most find themselves sliding into Good or Evil. My favorite example of this is the character of Han Solo. When we first meet him, he's pretty firmly Unaligned. He looks out for himself and his best friend, but makes his money however he can. If this means doing something not precisely legal, that's fine - as long as there's enough money in it. By the time we reach the beginning of Return of the Jedi, however, he's General Solo. The free-spirited rogue is still in there, but he's found a cause and other people to care about - and he has a real reason to fight. He's shifted from Unaligned to Good.
A similar example can be made of Anaken Skywalker. The Jedi as an order tend toward Unaligned, but Anaken's passions led him down the darker path to Evil.
Further they could take the approach of balance in which they think both good and evil need to exist together (the whole without one there is no other).
This is even harder to maintain. True balance between good and evil gets one branded as a traitor by both sides. It's easier to rise above such concerns - as the Raven Queen and her followers - than it is to try to walk between them.
Some do, but it's a tough line to walk. Eventually most find themselves sliding into Good or Evil. My favorite example of this is the character of Han Solo. When we first meet him, he's pretty firmly Unaligned. He looks out for himself and his best friend, but makes his money however he can. If this means doing something not precisely legal, that's fine - as long as there's enough money in it. By the time we reach the beginning of Return of the Jedi, however, he's General Solo. The free-spirited rogue is still in there, but he's found a cause and other people to care about - and he has a real reason to fight. He's shifted from Unaligned to Good.
Solo is the child of an Evil land. While he is a rogue and he is often a 'good natured' rogue. Is it because of the Empire he lives in that he was unaligned moving towards good or would he have been a 'good guy' if he was born in an age where the Republic was considered good? While Solo did take a side, some un-named Smuggler might have continued doing what Solo did, selling to everyone. In the end it may bite them in the butt but it happens.
The because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality more reminds me of people that don't care about good or evil, just the cause they fight for. This idea is often perverted by some to convince them that they are walking that morally righteous cause when they slaughter that town of innocents as they do it in the name of there cause. While stories of this sort often have certain characters eventually taking a side (as you said earlier) the un-named masses of the army continue on there march.
A similar example can be made of Anaken Skywalker. The Jedi as an order tend toward Unaligned, but Anaken's passions led him down the darker path to Evil.
Except that strangely following the guidelines of evil (ala the evil alignment) Vader could never rise above being evil. In the end he does a selfless act and if you follow the alignment as given it would never cross his mind to do this.
This is even harder to maintain. True balance between good and evil gets one branded as a traitor by both sides. It's easier to rise above such concerns - as the Raven Queen and her followers - than it is to try to walk between them.
It may be but it is an option that never the less can occur and makes Unaligned different than evil, which was the OP question I believe.
You forgot to include the bolded part of the sentence on evil, which is a crucial difference. An evil character is perfectly happy hurting people and is, while he doesn't necessarilly hurt people ALL the time, quite willing to actively harm others if he thinks it will benefit him. Compare that to an unaligned person who simply doesn't like to actively harm other people at all.
For instance, an evil character will gladly sadistically kick beggars in the street and enslaving orphans if it somehow helps him achieve his goals. An evil character will rob a merchant if he thinks it is worth the effort. An unaligned person won't actively do those things.
No, I didnt forget :D
The difference seems to be that the Evil alignment makes explicit what the Unaligned alignment leaves unsaid....despite them both being identical in all other matters....which is a bit 'suss'.
That is, when Unaligned says "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill", this means the same in practice as where Evil says "Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want".
How do we know that this is the case? Simple; it is comparable to where Unaligned says "You support law and order when doing so benefits you...[and]...you value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others" whilst Evil openly admits "They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom". Here we have both alignments admitting a common ground or lack of care about the freedoms of others, and only valueing law and order where it benefits themselves, but only Evil being honest enough to say what that means in practice.
Again, there's a crucial difference here. Evil people are perfectly happy actively enslaving other people. By comparison an unaligned person's attitude is "I sure hope that press gang goes after that other guy and not me!" The unaligned person isn't actively trying to enslave other people; he just wants to live his own life in peace.
Actually, the description implies a passive Evil as opposed to an active Evil of "Evil" itself. That is, where Evil actively enslaves others, Unaligned is simply willing for others to be enslaved for them without directly getting their own hands dirty. Both admit to not caring about others freedoms, but only Evil admits actively enslaving.
Actually, the description implies a passive Evil as opposed to an active Evil of "Evil" itself. That is, where Evil actively enslaves others, Unaligned is simply willing for others to be enslaved for them without directly getting their own hands dirty. Both admit to not caring about others freedoms, but only Evil admits actively enslaving.
Reply With Quote
And that's the point. That's the difference.
DrMorganes explains it way better than I do. The man is full of wisdom.
And that's the point. That's the difference.
DrMorganes explains it way better than I do. The man is full of wisdom.
Which, like I said, makes no real difference. Evil is the active form of not caring about others and being willing to sacrifice their freedom if it benefits the evil person. Neutral is the passive form of the same; they are not "good light" or even "good with a weak will", they are as selfish and supporting of slavery as Evil is....they just wont act to manufacture it themselves (despite being happy to benefit from it - because, as the PHB says, they dont care about others freedoms and are happy to embrace order so long as it benefits themselves).
...
That is, when Unaligned says "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill", this means the same in practice as where Evil says "Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want". ....
Those two sentences do not "mean the same in practice". Quite literally, in fact, it means that an Unaligned person and an Evil person have different practices. Unaligned people don't try and actively harm others, but Evil people will do just that (they just won't go too much out of their way to do it.)
I think the problem is you might be misinterpreting what the phrase "don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people" actually means. It doesn't mean that Evil people don't hurt people. It means that they won't bother to hurt someone if it's too much of a hassle or too risky to do it. An Evil person is perfectly willing to rob someone blind, but not necessarily if there's considerable risk involved. An Evil person is quite happy to intentionally punish or torture people to bring other people in line and to quell dissent, but he won't bother torturing random people off the street simply because he likes inflicting pain. So an Evil person will do evil acts, but not necessarily all the time and not if doing them is counterproductive to his longer term goals.
Unaligned people do none of that. They don't actively try and harm innocent people, period. Sure, they'll defend themselves if provoked. And they commit the sin of not-getting-involved when they see evil acts. "I feel bad for that guy, but it's not my problem." Unaligned people have at least enough sympathy for the suffering of other people to not try and make people suffer.
Now if what you're trying to argue is that both Unaligned people and Evil people are mainly "looking out for number one", then you're probably right. Unaligned people are still somewhat selfish in that they don't feel any particular need to actively HELP other people. Which is different from Good people, who actually do actively go out of their way to help strangers. So an unaligned person certainly isn't good. But neither are they evil, because while they don't actively help strangers, neither do they actively harm them, whereas actively harming people is exactly what Evil people are willing to do (and what Chaotic Evil people do simply for fun on a whim.)
Evil is the scumbag politician they vote for.
Unaligned is for sheeple and animals, PC should not be allowed to be unaligned.
The evil over lord is evil, the knee breakers that work for him are evil, the mason that is installing his toilet is unaligned. (if he was good, He'd not be doing so)
Unaligned is a voter just voting for whatever party his parents belonged to.
Evil is the scumbag politician they vote for.
Nope, its not. It may sound like it (what with it being called "Unaligned" and all....) but the description is almost identical to Evil - the values are the same except as so far Evil is more pro-active.
Unaligned is the person who is happy to knowingly buy sweatshop clothes but doesnt have the gumption to set up a factory themselves.
Unaligned people do none of that. They don't actively try and harm innocent people, period. Sure, they'll defend themselves if provoked. And they commit the sin of not-getting-involved when they see evil acts. "I feel bad for that guy, but it's not my problem." Unaligned people have at least enough sympathy for the suffering of other people to not try and make people suffer.
Exactly, it is like the Chapelle show's song about R. Kelley:
"Haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love,
Players gonna play, I don't want none of the above,
I'm gonna pee on you, yes I will, pee on you."
Chapelle in that song is unaligned.
...
Unaligned is for sheeple and animals, PC should not be allowed to be unaligned....
I disagree. Just because you're unaligned doesn't mean you're not a skilled adventurer or combatant or that you're not loyal to your close friends. A good example would be an unaligned bodyguard character who adventures because he wants to keep his friends from getting hurt and because he and his pals earn a lot of money and loot, plus he enjoys the excitement of fighting. On his own, without his companions, he doesn't care as much about strangers and their problems. He sees his job as protecting the party and helping them get out of scrapes, not helping someone he's never met.
Good Guys, Bad Guys and Rocks.
I suggest that 5th edition reduces the number of alignments to three:
Good Guys, Bad Guys and Rocks.
Or does something truly innovative and removes it all together. Its an archaic form of shoehorning characters into ideas that is not needed. Alignment is good to help teach you aspects and it can be good to give a person some tips on those aspects.
Or does something truly innovative and removes it all together. Its an archaic form of shoehorning characters into ideas that is not needed. Alignment is good to help teach you aspects and it can be good to give a person some tips on those aspects.
Yeah, I agree that alignment is probably something that's not actually needed in terms of game mechanics. Plus in 4th edition they have gotten away from things like Protection From Evil and other alignment-centric gameplay effects. It really is mainly just a roleplaying tool in 4th edition.
Still, it's not a bad way to give new players a quick and dirty idea of what a character is generally like in terms of how selfish or selfless they are.
Still, it's not a bad way to give new players a quick and dirty idea of what a character is generally like in terms of how selfish or selfless they are.
Yeah, tips, advice, guidelines and helpful hits are fine but in the it should be about the character.
Unaligned is a voter just voting for whatever party his parents belonged to.
Evil is the scumbag politician they vote for.
Unaligned is for sheeple and animals, PC should not be allowed to be unaligned.
The evil over lord is evil, the knee breakers that work for him are evil, the mason that is installing his toilet is unaligned. (if he was good, He'd not be doing so)
That's not the case. A good person plans to do good things, while trying to avoid doing evil things. An evil person plans evil things (even when they are within the law) and without selfish motivation will not perform good deeds. An unaligned character does whatever he feels is necessary for his goals- never thinking of where they fall on the spectrum, because either he can't (animal) or doesn't care (Raven Queen followers).
Unaligned is the hero that doesn't get deterred when a villian takes hostages, or that kills threats to it even after they surrender. An evil person would steal a mans money just to have more money, an unaligned person would steal only if they had a need they couldn't meet other ways.
I had to resort to littany of examples but I hope these highlight the difference enough.
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
I think this line is meant to say that unlike the Chaotic Evil person, the Evil person is not necessarily a blood thirsty psychopath that will kill anything in his way.
That you can play an evil character that isn't a murder/torturer/rapist/etc.
I think this line is meant to say that unlike the Chaotic Evil person, the Evil person is not necessarily a blood thirsty psychopath that will kill anything in his way.
That you can play an evil character that isn't a murder/torturer/rapist/etc.
Compare that line though with:
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill
There is a LOT of similarity there.
It'd obvious that while the evil character might not out of his way to torture people... torturers are evil people.
You have to read between the line a little.
Ultimately, people are selfish. Being unaligned is being selfish. The difference between selfishness and evilness is more or less just a magnification of the flaw.
That's not the case. A good person plans to do good things, while trying to avoid doing evil things. An evil person plans evil things (even when they are within the law) and without selfish motivation will not perform good deeds. An unaligned character does whatever he feels is necessary for his goals- never thinking of where they fall on the spectrum, because either he can't (animal) or doesn't care (Raven Queen followers).
Unaligned is the hero that doesn't get deterred when a villian takes hostages, or that kills threats to it even after they surrender. An evil person would steal a mans money just to have more money, an unaligned person would steal only if they had a need they couldn't meet other ways.
I had to resort to littany of examples but I hope these highlight the difference enough.
what is not the case?
You just stated the difference between unaligned and good, I was stating the difference between unaligned and evil.
tyrandor seems to have it, but I can see unaligned ending up the new Chaotic neutral.
tyrandor seems to have it, but I can see unaligned ending up the new Chaotic neutral.
3.5e - 4e
LG - LG
NG - G
CG - G
LN - Unaligned
TN - Unaligned
CN - Unaligned
LE - E
NE - E
CE - CE
They just removed the emphasis from the Law vs Chaos axis.
It was a weak axis anyway. If you put a LE, CE, CG and LG characters in a closed room, you can be sure the Good will team up with the Good, and Evil with Evil... they'll find each other's penchant for order/chaos annoying, but it'll be a flaw they will be able to get over for a bit.
I see unaligned even with its admittedly flawed wording as saying its more important that I do well then you do well but if your doing well helps me I'll help you
If you look at Evil and Unaligned in the new 4th Ed Alignments, you may notice a striking similarity; I did.
According to the PHB, Unaligned characters “ you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others ”(p 20).
Compare this with the section on Evil, which says “ Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want. Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. ”(p20).
Spot the difference?
Quite easily.
I'll use sweatshop labor as the example; a Good person will actively seek to put an end to such practices if it is within their power to do so. An Evil person would be running the sweatshop, or at least trying to exploit the situation for personal gain if it's worth the effort. An Unaligned person's reaction will be directed by forces completely disconnected from morality, such as income and information.
A well-paid and informed Unaligned person would recognize goods produced by such labor and may decide to not buy them because they can afford the choice. A poorly-paid and yet informed Unaligned person may want to avoid the cheap sweatshop goods, but they simply cannot afford to. Bills to pay, kids to feed, wish there was something I could do, etc. The uninformed don't recognize the moral implications of buying certain goods and will make decisions for other reasons. Furthermore, it is still Unaligned to know that the goods are produced with sweatshop labor and buy them regardless, rationalizing that $2-a-day is still more than the $0-a-day that the other 40% of the populace gets. All of these POVs are Unaligned, not just the last one.
The thing to remember is that the D&D world no longer revolves around alignment. It's just a one choice within a sea of other choices, not a with-us-or-against-us objective force, and there are many other choices in life that can be far more important to people than morality (power, money, family, politics, philosophy, religion, tradition, profession, nation, just to name a few).
Evil dudes, sound like the grifters and con-artists and criminals who don't trade in physical harm, at least not directly. People who abuse positions of authority would probably fall under 'evil' alignment. The drug dealer who isn't a user himself would be evil, as he's trading in the misery of other's addiction. The Pimp would fall under that realm too. Heh, politicians in some respects may fall under that too.
Doesn't change the fact that at their core, they are cold blood killer.
Someone earlier observed that "Lawful vs. Chaotic" was the weaker axis. I agree, and someone would note that Chaotic Good and Lawful Good would still team up against Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil...
The only variable is how does one necessarily represent a deity whose most important directive is order... regardless of whether its effects are for good or for ill. Would this be represented by "unaligned"? Where the followers would either be "Lawful Good" if good government and the benefit of others through order, while "Evil" would represent those who have slid into Tyranny.
In this system, judge dread (the typical LN poster boy) is unaligned.
Law vs Chaos is just not a strong enough axis unless you are also evil/good... which in this case turns you into extreme ... lawful good persons are paragons, chaotic evil person are monsters.
Remember that Chaotic Evil now promoted destruction, entropy and the end of life... it isn't just 'an evil guy who doesn't have any plans' anymore.
you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill.
Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
They are completely different, and I'll explain why. It is in context with what is said after and in perspective with the allignment. For example
Unaligned:
But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward
.
The context here is in the whole statement, not in just the one portion
you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward
To rephrase these with the exact same meaning:
You don't go out of your way to put yourself at risk to help others, but you don't actively seek to harm them either.
And the differences are glaring, don't seek to harm, don't wish ill, don't go out of your way to put yourself at risk (but you will put yourself at risk if it isn't out of the way, and you will help if it isn't risky)
Lets review your points, shall we?
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
Not the complete statements:
Unaligned: you don't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. Meaning you are Not actively seeking to harm others or wish them ill. The same could be said about the Good alignment who also doesn't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. This statement is conditional upon the next statement which is joined dirrectly to it by the word "BUT"
Which means that although you aren't going to risk yourself for others, and are somewhat self centered and uncommitted to the well being of others (you might be callous towards the poor and don't care about the polotics of china) "BUT" you aren't actively seeking to harm people or wish them ill.
Evil on the other Hand....
"don't nessisarily go out of their way to hurt people"
is also qualified with a "BUT"
But you don't care if you do, as in...
You didn't mean to kill the orphans, you didn't go out of your way to kill them, BUT you wanted to collect the insurance money on the building and so lit it on fire in the middle of the night. Of course you couldn't warn them, it was a shame they had to die as they were cheap labour, but if you had led them out of the building then there would have been witnesses placing you at the scene.
The unaligned person hearing that a building is on fire, doesn't want to harm anyone, ceretainly not orphans, but doesn't get out of bed and rush accross town to run into a burning building to make sure everyone is ok either. Now he might if he was a fireman and was paid well to do so, but he isn't. But if he was on the scene, or it was the building next door, he would probably assist in the water bucket line to help put the fire out.
Unaligned: You support law and order when doing so benefits you
And you would oppose laws that don't benifit you. Again you take this out of context.
I support laws that benifit me, such as those that keep my streets safe, keep drunk drivers off the road, protect my constitutional rights etc etc.
However I am opposed to the recent Tax increase by the government and I speed frequently.
Which is different from:
Evil: Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain
Sorry I have to go, but you get the drift or what I am saying I hope
There is, the difference is in what is not said, what is implied, by the mere fact that the alignment is called evil.
It'd obvious that while the evil character might not out of his way to torture people... torturers are evil people.
You have to read between the line a little.
Ultimately, people are selfish. Being unaligned is being selfish. The difference between selfishness and evilness is more or less just a magnification of the flaw.
Now, ya see, I think that is reading in to "Unaligned" simply on the label it has been assigned...but which is not backed up in the content of the description.
I see unaligned even with its admittedly flawed wording as saying its more important that I do well then you do well but if your doing well helps me I'll help you
An Evil would do that as well - only Chaotic Evil would "go out of their way to harm others"....
A poorly-paid and yet informed Unaligned person may want to avoid the cheap sweatshop goods, but they simply cannot afford to. Bills to pay, kids to feed, wish there was something I could do, etc. The uninformed don't recognize the moral implications of buying certain goods and will make decisions for other reasons. Furthermore, it is still Unaligned to know that the goods are produced with sweatshop labor and buy them regardless, rationalizing that $2-a-day is still more than the $0-a-day that the other 40% of the populace gets. All of these POVs are Unaligned, not just the last one.
Nope, sorry, but I think you are reading something into Unaligned which is not in line with its own description (I'm wondering whether the notion of *being* Unaligned is actually a misnomer....). The Unaligned person simply does not care about others:
Can you make a similar list of comparisons (from the text) with Good or Lawful Good alignments?
Unaligned is the new Chaotic Neutral; that is, its the alignment to be "evil" without admitting an "evil" label.
Remember that Chaotic Evil now promoted destruction, entropy and the end of life... it isn't just 'an evil guy who doesn't have any plans' anymore.
What happens if he wants to destroy the universe but has a plan, something more then:
1) Have a meeting to discuss the plans
2) ?????
3) The universe is destroyed
Orcus is CE and something tells me that while he does like the occasional pointless death, destruction and mayhem for the sake of it he doesn't do everything without plans.
Biggest problem is that there just isn't enough description of each alignment to properly define the nature of the various alignments.
Now, ya see, I think that is reading in to "Unaligned" simply on the label it has been assigned...but which is not backed up in the content of the description.
P.19, before the description you're picking on, there's a small sidebar.
Aligntment:
Good: Freedom and Kindness
Lawful Good: Civilization and Order
Evil: Tyranny and Hatred
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and Destruction
Unaligned: Having no alignmenet, taking no stand.
The description are used to flesh out those above, but are totally worthless without them for context.
Unaligned is the new Chaotic Neutral; that is, its the alignment to be "evil" without admitting an "evil" label.
It's also the alignment to play if you want to be a 'True Neutral' (i.e. The balance must be maintained!) character or a near robotich, unfeeling law-hound (Judge Dredd).
And it's also the alignment that fits pretty much 90% of the world - people who don't care about evil or injustice... until it happens to them or people they care about.
The thing you need to realize, is that this is NOT 3.5.
There's no Detect Evil. There's no Evil spell descriptor. There's no item that only work if you're good. There's no circle of protection against evil. There's no Align Weapon.
If you want to play an evil character... play one. Why the hell would you bother masquerading as an Unaligned character?
I'd personally have no problem running a game with an Evil character... as long as he isn't an idiot/disruptive about it. And the description support that has being possible.
What happens if he wants to destroy the universe but has a plan, something more then:
1) Have a meeting to discuss the plans
2) ?????
3) The universe is destroyed
Orcus is CE and something tells me that while he does like the occasional pointless death, destruction and mayhem for the sake of it he doesn't do everything without plans.
Biggest problem is that there just isn't enough description of each alignment to properly define the nature of the various alignments.
There doesn't need to be... those are guidelines at best. You're not mean to beat down on your player and go 'WHAT YOU DIDN'T WANT VERY NEUTRAL GOOD! ACT NEUTRAL GOOD OR YOU'LL CHANGE ALIGNEMENT! BWAHAHAHA!' anymore.
As for Orcus
Orcus lives in the Abyss. He wants to destroy everything and for everything to stop existing. He is entropy. He only tolerate undead servant because since they're dead, they're one stop closer to not-being then the living.
Very similar to the Wyrm in the old Werewolf:The Apocalypse game - Destruction for destruction's sake. You're probably capable to make plans toward it, but your ultimate goal is annihilation. Something that most being can't fathom.
Chaotic Evil is really elemental, really primal... and considering it embodies the Abyss, it's extremely fitting.
Someone who wants to destroy the universe but through some mystic mumbo-jumbo want to 'recreate it in his image' or somesuch in Evil, not Chaotic Evil. CE doesn't care nor want to rebuild. They want the uniserve to stop turning and to be forever silent.
Someone who wants to destroy the universe but through some mystic mumbo-jumbo want to 'recreate it in his image' or somesuch in Evil, not Chaotic Evil. CE doesn't care nor want to rebuild. They want the uniserve to stop turning and to be forever silent.
I don't remembering disagreeing with this point or others, merely pointing out that while he may want his instincts to run free he is not stupid enough not to have plans.
Chaotic doesn't mean stupid... unlike what it did in 3.5 :P I remember the expression 'Chaotic Stupid' :P.
Chaotic doesn't even mean you won't respect the law anymore (although you most likely won't, since you don't care about them) or that you don't make plans.
Essentially, you're Evil... but where the Evil character does his evil deed to advance himself, the CE does his deed to destroy - quite often for it's own sake.
Gruumsh (and his followers, the orcs) kill for the sake of killing and destroy for the sake of destroying... they don't do it because they want your land or your resource... they do it to kill you. Once everybody else is dead, they'll turn on each other. Once they're dead... that's it, there's no one left.
I think 4e did a mistake in using the word 'lawful good' and 'chaotic evil' instead of coming with new terms... those two alignments, while similar, are not the same as their 3.5 counterpart.
I think DM's will need to ride "Unaligned" characters pretty hard to make sure they don't simply use it as a mask for "evil" roleplaying. I know I had been in previous parties where everyone picked "Chaotic Neutral" because they didn't want anybody telling them what to do... which of course, fundamentally misunderstood what the old "Chaotic Neutral" means...
Mind you, I always seemed to play "good" characters in a group that was bent on playing "evil" characters. Go figure... at least now there's specific recommendations in the books advising against parties being composed of evil characters...
There's another interesting implication from these alignments... Lawful Good and Good alignments will work together. Unaligned will go along with it as long as they consider some benefit for themselves or their community. Evil might even work with Good or Lawful Good if there's a way they could work the angle to end up to their benefit... even if it means a literal or metaphorical backstab at the right time... Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, won't...
On the flip side... Chaotic Evil won't even work with Chaotic Evil in the long-run. Short term goals, but ultimately selfishness, entropy and destruction will take over. Chances are Evil would have a difficult time working with Chaotic Evil because the results may not be worth the effort because Chaotic Evil will ultimately turn on them too...
Unaligned is likely to work with all but Chaotic Evil regularly, unless it's low or non-intelligent beings...
I just have to wonder what the nickname will be... unintelligent... Dum-aligned?
yes, we have a winner, Dum-aligned!
Wizards hasn't fixed the Chaotic stupid problem, just given it a new name:
Just wait till your Dum-aligned Rogue tries to steal the pants of a peasant and not expect to have his hands cut off by the guard.
Unaligned is simple, 'unaligned' neutrality.
If your players feel like being highway bandits (Which would most likely be unaligned, especially if they don't kill people unless forced too) or what not - let them.
The Chaotic Stupid problem comes just as much from the player, as it does from the DM forcing people who want to play rogues (not the classes) and jerk into playing 4-colors heroes.
There's also nothing wrong with playing evil characters if they aren't stupid - Look at shows like the sopranos... those are evil people. Doesn't mean they can't have compelling stories. Doesn't mean they can't be smart and realistic character.
Some of the best non-D&D games I had were game of intrigues and deception. Cloak and Dagger style set during the Roman Empire. Those games did not have an alignment system. However, if we were to transpose our characters to D&D - all of them would be seen as 'evil' character.... I'd put them as Unaligned myself, but I'm sure a lot of people would call them evil.
None of them were rabbid murderers or bloodthirst madman... they were cold, calculating, schemer, ready to stab you in the back or poison you at the moment it would advance their plans. They saw other humans being as pawn on a chess board. But you'd meet them at the local bazaar and they'd be all smile, shake your hand and ask you how your daughter's schooling was going.
It's not because you're evil that you're one dimensional. In fact, game that focus on intrigue and social climbing usually requires a certain level of ruthlessness and moral flexibility from the player characters. I think it's a shame the book outright say playing an evil character is bad - it's only bad if you and your player can't handle it.
I think they were trying to be as generic as they could in the Unaligned section, and just came across as sort of empty and cold. And yet, if Unaligned can't also mean a sort of ordinary person, what does? As brought up earlier, the character who cares about his friends, but doesn't really care too much about helping strangers, isn't terribly evil, but also clearly isn't good. I still think the 3E point that Neutral, or Unaligned, characters tend a bit towards good is a valid point. Given the choice to do good or evil, with equal rewards for both, most people will still choose good. Anyway, I suppose I'm digressing now. Basically, try looking at it as something to fill the space from Good to Evil, see if that helps.
If you look at Evil and Unaligned in the new 4th Ed Alignments, you may notice a striking similarity; I did.
According to the PHB, Unaligned characters “ you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others ”(p 20).
Compare this with the section on Evil, which says “ Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want. Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. ”(p20).
Spot the difference?
I'll take it a point at a time.
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
Unaligned: You support law and order when doing so benefits you
Evil: Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain
Unaligned: You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others
Evil: They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom
Now, it may just be me....but the difference between those two stances can be measured with a human hair or a politician's conscience! The only difference, to me, is that Evil actually goes on to 'unpack' what their (common) attitude means in reality, whilst Unaligned remains quiet on the matter.....
The difference is conviction versus lack of conviction, all I am seeing here is that you don't think that is much of a difference. Unaligned replaced neutral. Those who think someone is just as guilty for not caring about a good or ill deed as the person who actively performs the good or ill deed will not see much difference here. Those who don't think that is tantamount to the same thing however, will see the difference. My 2 cents.
The difference is conviction versus lack of conviction, all I am seeing here is that you don't think that is much of a difference. Unaligned replaced neutral.
No, ya see, it didnt. Neutral used to be about loyalties based on personal relationships; which made a degree of sense as compared to the egotistic Evils and the Principles-before-tribalism of Good.
Now its just passive Evil; with all the same basic Evil qualities, taking advantage of and caring little about others, without being proactive like Evil is. This changes the nature of the 'neutral' alignment slot by a great deal.
But it'll end up the new CN, or rather Chaotic stupid.
I just have to wonder what the nickname will be... unintelligent... Dum-aligned?
yes, we have a winner, Dum-aligned!
Wizards hasn't fixed the Chaotic stupid problem, just given it a new name:
Just wait till your Dum-aligned Rogue tries to steal the pants of a peasant and not expect to have his hands cut off by the guard.
As much as I hate alignment, it is not to blame here; nothing WotC does with alignment can fix the Stupid Player problem. Only the DM can do that... and if they don't fix it, then they only have themselves to blame.
really the best solution is no neutral. You either try not to be evil... or you don't.
and animals don't have alignment unless they are possessed or other wise under control of and aligned entity.
the problem isn't in the crunch, but in the fluff.
but there are lost of effects and affects of being good or evil...
so the players shouldn't decide their alignment... that would be too metagamy, they just RP the character, and the DM must decide if they qualify as good or evil if it ever comes up in a spell.
that would be the best solution.
It's fascinating how many people use alignment has a straight jacket to force their players to behave in a certain way...
Quite easily.
I'll use sweatshop labor as the example; a Good person will actively seek to put an end to such practices if it is within their power to do so. An Evil person would be running the sweatshop, or at least trying to exploit the situation for personal gain if it's worth the effort. An Unaligned person's reaction will be directed by forces completely disconnected from morality, such as income and information.
A well-paid and informed Unaligned person would recognize goods produced by such labor and may decide to not buy them because they can afford the choice. A poorly-paid and yet informed Unaligned person may want to avoid the cheap sweatshop goods, but they simply cannot afford to. Bills to pay, kids to feed, wish there was something I could do, etc. The uninformed don't recognize the moral implications of buying certain goods and will make decisions for other reasons. Furthermore, it is still Unaligned to know that the goods are produced with sweatshop labor and buy them regardless, rationalizing that $2-a-day is still more than the $0-a-day that the other 40% of the populace gets. All of these POVs are Unaligned, not just the last one.
The thing to remember is that the D&D world no longer revolves around alignment. It's just a one choice within a sea of other choices, not a with-us-or-against-us objective force, and there are many other choices in life that can be far more important to people than morality (power, money, family, politics, philosophy, religion, tradition, profession, nation, just to name a few).
I disagree with the sweatshop example. Most factories overseas that are rightly called sweatshops are in countries that are abysmally poor. The sweatshops in those countries pay twice what the workers would be able to get in any other job. By boycotting anything manufactured in such a factory, you aren't helping anyone, just selfishly salving your own guilt at having been fortunate enough to be born in an affluant nation. Think about what happens if that sweatshop gets closed because you don't buy stuff made there. Those employees get let go or get their pay decreased as the owner of the shop tries his best to keep from throwing his employees in the street. So tell me, is the owner of the sweatshop evil? I don't think so, he's paying his employees much better than they'd realistically expect to get, and furthermore probably taking them out of jobs far worse than working a sewing machine in a room with no air conditioning. Esspecially considering that they wouldn't have air conditioning where ever else they worked, and that is assuming they could find work. Bottom line its not like the owners employees have other options and they'd be much worse off without the factory.
Don't mean to sidetrack the post, but this really bugged me.
I disagree with the sweatshop example. Most factories overseas that are rightly called sweatshops are in countries that are abysmally poor. The sweatshops in those countries pay twice what the workers would be able to get in any other job. By boycotting anything manufactured in such a factory, you aren't helping anyone, just selfishly salving your own guilt at having been fortunate enough to be born in an affluant nation. Think about what happens if that sweatshop gets closed because you don't buy stuff made there. Those employees get let go or get their pay decreased as the owner of the shop tries his best to keep from throwing his employees in the street. So tell me, is the owner of the sweatshop evil? I don't think so, he's paying his employees much better than they'd realistically expect to get, and furthermore probably taking them out of jobs far worse than working a sewing machine in a room with no air conditioning. Esspecially considering that they wouldn't have air conditioning where ever else they worked, and that is assuming they could find work. Bottom line its not like the owners employees have other options and they'd be much worse off without the factory.
Don't mean to sidetrack the post, but this really bugged me.
hah, nice. the ends justify the means but the ends are plural!
Unaligned: you don’t actively seek to harm others
Evil: Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people
This is the crux of the difference. While Evil characters don't have to hurt others, nothing in the description prevents them from doing so. Unaligned characters don't do it ever. So, if you go out of your ay to injure others you are definately some form of evil; if you don't than you could be unaligned, but you could also be evil (or good, although that probably doesn't need to be stated).
For a more concrete example, consider Nazi Germany (in before Godwin comments). Hitler, the SS, the Gestapo and others were definately Evil. Those who resisted by various means, by helping others flee the country and the like would be Good. The average German citizen would be Unaligned. They aren't willing to become directly involved in the most grisly aspects, but they aren't going to actually do anything to stop it either. They'll likely support the regime while it's in power (because it would be dangerous not to) but won't continue doing so once its overthrown.
The truth is, its going to be hard to tell the difference between Unaligned individuals and those that have the alignment of those in power; Unaligned people are going to imitate the actions of the powerful simply because it's easier that way. Most Allied citizens, for example, are also Unaligned but because their leadership is Good or Lawful Good (we'll ignore Stalin for the sake of arguement), they behave as if they were themselves Good; making it difficult to identify those who really are Good.
Regardless, my group prefers to ditch alignment entirely. It implies a sort of across the board consistency of views that just isn't adequete to describe most people's personality, and IMO tends to become a crutch that causes players not to think about the character's full range of motivations, as well as stifling posible growth (i.e. Evil characters always act "Evil", instead of holding having a mix of varied, even contradictory views and almost never change those views over time; the same applies to the other alignments, although Unaligned probably suffers the least from this problem).
Could someone spot, and post, a textual similarity between Good and Unaligned in the same way as I have posted for Evil and Unaligned?
I see it more of a...
Lawful Good - you do good things for the sake of doing good things, and believe so strongly in order that you prefer to follow the law whenever possible
Good - you do good things for the sake of doing good things, and believe doing the good thing is more important by far than doing the legal thing.
Unaligned - you do what you can to get by, more concerned with survival and profit than with concepts like good or evil.
Evil - you do whatever gives you the greatest possible benefit, and don't care how much this affects those around you. You do anything you can get away with inside the structured laws of the area and take advantage of anyone that presents an opportunity to do so.
Chaotic Evil - you do whatever you want regardless of all else, nothing but your self is worth any concern.
Unaligned - you do what you can to get by, more concerned with survival and profit than with concepts like good or evil.
Evil - you do whatever gives you the greatest possible benefit, and don't care how much this affects those around you. You do anything you can get away with inside the structured laws of the area and take advantage of anyone that presents an opportunity to do so.
How much do those two differ really though, and certainly how close are they compared to how close, or rather how far apart,
Good - you do good things for the sake of doing good things, and believe doing the good thing is more important by far than doing the legal thing.
Unaligned - you do what you can to get by, more concerned with survival and profit than with concepts like good or evil.
are?
How much do those two differ really though, and certainly how close are they compared to how close, or rather how far apart,
are?
I'm not saying that the differences are balanced... after all, lawful good -> good is a much larger step (in my opinion) than chaotic evil -> evil.
Unaligned does come off as being more toward evil than it should, and that is because of what I think is poor word choice in the PHB.
Unaligned characters are still capable of being a "hero" type, where as evil aligned characters don't seem to be able to be any for of hero, not even an anti-hero.
Unaligned characters still put themselves at risk to help others. Evil characters don't.
Unaligned characters ask for rewards and incentives for helping others. Good characters will help with or without reward.
I think those two things are what keep Unaligned in the "middle ground" between good and evil.
Most people you know are Unaligned. They're (probably) basically decent people, who don't go particularly out of their way to cause anyone harm, or to do exceptional good for anyone else.
Someone who, say, decides to spend time as a missionary in Africa, spend all their free time working at a soup kitchen, work as a police officer motivated by an honest desire to improve the community... They're good, moving possibly to lawful good for the cop. (Yes, I know there are cops out there who aren't "good," but we're making examples, here.)
The asshat who busted your car windows to steal your stereo, and deliberately ripped up your dashboard to get at it? Evil. Dahmer, Manson? Chaotic Evil.
That help define things?
Anyway, the difference between evil and unaligned is that an unaligned person feels pity, remorse, obligation, etc. And these all prevent him from commiting atrocities in order to further themselves.
Chaotic Evil - you do whatever you want regardless of all else, nothing but your self is worth any concern.
That is 3.5 CE, not 4e
Anyway, the difference between evil and unaligned is that an unaligned person feels pity, remorse, obligation, etc. And these all prevent him from commiting atrocities in order to further themselves.
Really good take on it. Unaligned has a conscience... evil, doesn't.
When the Unaligned person does a bad deed, he will regret it. Might even come to turn himself over.
The evil person doesn't care. The fact that he slit someone's throat to take their pocket watch doesn't cause him any problem when it's time to go to bed.
That is 3.5 CE, not 4e
Interesting.
Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly
contribute to their interests.
(bold added for emphasis)
Chaotic Evil - you do whatever you want regardless of all else, nothing but your self is worth any concern.
which part of my summary doesn't match up to the book's entry?
CE - Destrution and Entropy.
CE is more then just an evil guy that does what he wants and has no regard for others - yes, that is what a CE does, but that is not what a CE his.
The description you gave for CE can also apply to Evil. The difference between CE and E, is that at the end of the day, E did all that slaughtering, stealing and cheating to better his own lot in life.
CE did all that slaughtering, stealing and cheating for it's own sake... because he wants to destroy thing.
The difference between E and CE isn't that one respect the laws and the other doesn't... but rather that one is personal evil, while the other is more or less pure evil.
It might seem like semantic, but it's actually a big difference - the evil character may well do good if he knows it's the course of action that grant him the best benefits. An evil character can very well end up with a reputation for 'Goodness' and I'm sure quite a few 'benevolant and good king' were actually evil! They appeared good and benevolant because they were good by their people (Smart: Avoid rebellion) but they were not above organising assassination or 'Black OP' and get their hand dirty to solve a problem.
The CE guy, will never do that. He's not evil to better his situation... he's evil to destroy. Granted, they're not stupid and will amass power... but the point of them amassing power is once again so they can better destroy stuff - not to get a comfy retirement.
The new alignment are fewer and vaguer, but that makes the alignment system more versatile and flexible, not less.
Anyway, the difference between evil and unaligned is that an unaligned person feels pity, remorse, obligation, etc. And these all prevent him from commiting atrocities in order to further themselves.
Where do you get that from?
Unaligned characters still put themselves at risk to help others. Evil characters don't.
Unaligned characters ask for rewards and incentives for helping others. Good characters will help with or without reward.
I think you will find that Evil characters will put themselves at risk....if they are offered a reward as well - so thats not really a difference afterall....
Where do you get that from?
Common sense? :P
The fact that evil is described as Tyrannical and Hateful?
I get the feeling you're just stuck on a literal interpretation of the book and you intend to parade it has some kind of proof that it doesn't work.
I'm fairly confident you're a smart person and understand exactly what they mean by unaligned and how it's different from evil - you're just screwing around with what you perceive has an insufficient description in the book.
And yes, Unaligned was written purposefully vague so somebody that is unaligned can get away with evil action.
Where do you get that from?
You need me to quote an "official" source?
You need me to quote an "official" source?
Well, I cant see anything in the description of Unaligned that would lead to that view, so yes, an "official" source would be nice :D
Common sense? :P
You're new to alignment, arnt you ;) :P
The fact that evil is described as Tyrannical and Hateful?
I get the feeling you're just stuck on a literal interpretation of the book and you intend to parade it has some kind of proof that it doesn't work.
I'm fairly confident you're a smart person and understand exactly what they mean by unaligned and how it's different from evil - you're just screwing around with what you perceive has an insufficient description in the book.
And yes, Unaligned was written purposefully vague so somebody that is unaligned can get away with evil action.
Actually I'm wondering if it was written to give "evil" a foot in on regular behaviour, or, more likely, to show how close to full-on Evil most regular 'values' actually are
Which suggests that at the time, their concept of Unaligned was intended to allow moderately dark characters, without going total malevolence.
It also said good characters can be surly, do things that aren't exactly good once in a while, that the dedication to keep trying is what's important about alignment. That it should influence your actions, but not define your entire personality.
The Reluctant Adventurer: "I'm not even supposed to be here today!" The reluctant adventurer cares more about something other than the moral struggle in the story; personal safety, food and other essentials, paying off a debt, or just one's friends or traveling companions. The reluctant adventurer would be just fine with going around the haunted house, leaving the dark portal alone, letting the mad wizard control the color blue, and otherwise acting like a sane, well balanced individual with some sense of self preservation.
This archetype is, instead, dragged into the conflict by friends, obligations, or simple quirks of fate, until a point of no return is reached. The Reluctant Adventurer reminds the heroes that there is a home to return to, that forgetting about the basics of life in the pursuit of glory or ideals is as dangerous as not having any ideals at all, and differs from Good archetypes like the Gruff Hero(The likes of Bilbo Baggins or Ash Williams) in that the Reluctant honestly is only there out of a sense of duty or decency, lacking hidden urge to adventure or moral compulsion to risk life and limb that would push those less than eager heroes into the adventure even without it being an immediate need. Examples include Shaggy and Scooby Doo, most horror or disaster film protagonists, and even, from a certain perspective, Achilles.
The Abused Toady: "M-master, do you really have to, eh...enjoy interrogating them so much? It's, eh, bothering the...the hired help..." The Toady is not a bad person per say, only really guilty of being afraid of pain. A stronger villain has some sort of leverage that pushes the toady into villainy; it could be a kidnapped family, the guy's soul hidden in a locket, or just a codependent relationship, but the toady both works to please the controller and endures the controller's abuse in order to preserve this precious thing. The importance of this character is to both humanize the forces of evil, and give insight into the nature of villainy, through showing the relationship between toady and boss; it differs from the Igor in that the toady does not actively support the boss's agenda.
I'd call both of these Unaligned-their motivations are clearly in the 'other' file on the ol'alignment axis.
Actually I'm wondering if it was written to give "evil" a foot in on regular behaviour, or, more likely, to show how close to full-on Evil most regular 'values' actually are
I might be cynical, but I do believe the difference between a normal person and a villain... unaliged and evil... is relatively thin. We are overall selfish, greedy people that think of themselves first and the greater good much later, if at all.
Kinda like the subject of the upcoming Batman movie: When the world fall into chaos... how long will the civilized people remain civilized?
I think the Joker's right, it won't be long before they start acting crazy.
I don't have a problem with that. I accept my flaws as human being. And it always annoyed me that D&D 'forced' you to play a good guy (And it's pretty much the only rpg - most other game do not have an aligment system).
Were the creator of D&D trying to make a social critic with their alignment system? /shrug.
I might be cynical, but I do believe the difference between a normal person and a villain... unaliged and evil... is relatively thin. We are overall selfish, greedy people that think of themselves first and the greater good much later, if at all.
Indeed.
Nope, sorry, but I think you are reading something into Unaligned which is not in line with its own description (I'm wondering whether the notion of *being* Unaligned is actually a misnomer....). The Unaligned person simply does not care about others:
Can you make a similar list of comparisons (from the text) with Good or Lawful Good alignments?
Unaligned is the new Chaotic Neutral; that is, its the alignment to be "evil" without admitting an "evil" label.
Yes I can:
* "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill" : So does Good and Lawful Good, they don't actively seek to harm others or wish them ill.
* "you also don’t .... put yourself at risk without some hope for reward" - This isn't relevant and is poor logic at best.
Here is an example of what you are saying:
You are not an organ donor, an ethnic minority might need a heart transplant, Hitler didn't like ethnic minorities, therefore you must be a Nazi.
You are also seperating these as 2 seperate staements when they are joined by a qualifier, "but" as in:
I'm don't want anyone to get hurt or killed traveling to our town, BUT I am not volunteering to go hunt down the goblins without in the forest either, at least not without some decent compensation for my risks".
Which is "I am not seeking to harm others, but I'm not going to put myself at risk for no reward either."
And the same as "I know there are starving people in africa, but I am not going to donate my entire life savings to save them, I have family and a morgae to consider too"
Twisting these words to mean the most horrendous meaning possible is absurd and, for what should be obvious reasons, not the intention nor meaning of the words.
* "You support law and order when doing so benefits you": Supporting the law when it benifits you is completely different then using the law to maximize personal gain regardless of if it hurts others. This is quite a leap and an unqualified assumption.
As an example, I support laws that benifit me, such as no parking beside fire hydrants, because when my house catches fire I wish the fire department to be able to put it out. I also think the police is a nifty idea because criminals are generally bothersome.
I do however speed and don't support the latest tax increase by the government.
That doesn't make me evil, nor is it the same interpretation of the Evil allginment:
*Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom.
This is a completely different issue.
This is opening a sweat shop in some third world country to produce my goods, because I can hire child labour for a handful of grain for a 12hr's day, and dump my toxic waste in the local water supply.
That is maximizing personal gain, without caring about the harm to others. Which is decidely different then "supporting laws that benifit yourself"
And Evil doesn’t "necessarily go out of their way to hurt people" Because he didn't open that factory in a third world country in order to harm the children working in it, nor in a diabolical plot to poison the local drinking supply.
It's just that he doesn't really give two bits about them, he just wants to make an outrageous profit from shoddy merchandize.
Unaligned are mostly good people who simply don't have the moral strength to rally against Evil. Yes they know the neighbouring kingdom has slavery, and it's all bad, they abour slavery and they support laws against it, but when offered to join the army to go to war to stop said slavery, they become squimish.
The fear any DM, or fellow player, shoudl have is those who read the allignments like this and decide there is little difference between Unaligned or Evil and play their Unaligned character just like a Chaotic Evil character, even worse if they decide to play an "Unaligned" Paladin in this manner and play him as a serial killer under the shroud of "Unaligned" defined as "exactly the same as Evil"
Obviously if there wasn't a vast difference between Unaligned and Evil they would be no such Allignment, or else there would be an equivelent "good" allignment to match it. Such as Good, half-decent, Unaligned, Evil. As there this isn't the case the assumption should be that Unaligned is not exactly the same as Evil.
Most of the GTA Main Char Protagonists: Claude, CJ, Tommy, even Niko, Evil. Why? They may be fun characters, with interesting stories and even likeable personalities, but they traffic in carnage, destruction, and are willing and capable of killing or condoning killing/violence to get their way. Not a "You are my enemy, a chosen foe against that which I hold dear" kinda violence, but a "you're in my way, you have to die" kinda violence. They maximize personal gains at the expense of other people.
Interestingly...
Punisher: No idea where he'd fall under new alignment system. He no longer falls under the current 'evil' setup, he's neither a "Its my right to claim what others possess" or a "I don't care what I have to do to get what I want". Most players would play him as 'heroic', in a way he's old school Black and White heroics. Where you can use dread force on clearly identifiable sources of evil.
Here's my take on the LotR guys:
Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry. All Unaligned, with a strong sense of 'help your friends' and 'don't be a jerk' upbringing. By the end of things, I'd say they've become, at least, "Good" aligned. They went from not-really having a stand, more reactive in their nature, to making conscious choices, picking a side and 'fighting the good fight'.
Boromir: Unaligned, with some entitlement issues. His wishywashiness initially made him vulnerable to the ring's charms and tempted him into betrayal, luckily, at the end, he found some redemption and was able to shake off his touch with evil, though it cost him his life.
The magnificent trio: Aragorn, Gimli and Will Turner :P Good. All were good at the start. I'm thinking the dwarf and elf stayed Good at the end, while Aragorn also stepped up, made a choice, took on the mantle of responsibility he had been avoiding and became Lawful Good.
Gandalf: Who the heck knows. He's an agent of Lawful Good, likely sharing that alignment, but I'm not sure.
other musings:
Crew of Firefly:
Pretty much everyone is unaligned. Simon is probably 'good'. Shepard Book was probably Good, or at very least had settled on that Good alignment. The rest of the crew is generally unaligned, when push comes, they'll side with good, but ultimately they want to be left to their own devices, having the freedom to make their own choices. River is unaligned largely because she's a nutcase with mad ninja killing skillz.
Crew of Firefly:
Pretty much everyone is unaligned. Simon is probably 'good'. Shepard Book was probably Good, or at very least had settled on that Good alignment. The rest of the crew is generally unaligned, when push comes, they'll side with good, but ultimately they want to be left to their own devices, having the freedom to make their own choices.
Jayne has some seriously dodgy tendencies going on though...
River is unaligned largely because she's a nutcase with mad ninja killing skillz.
It there a "hot cute ninja chick" alignment? :D
It there a "hot cute ninja chick" alignment? :D
That would be Chaotic Sexy, to be released with the Alignment Expansion section of Oriental Adventures :D
Seriously though, this is why I dislike 4e's alignment switch so much. UA is really no different than 3e Neutral, and yet people act like they've never seen it before.
Consequently, you've lost the definitions of LN and CN in 4e, because those "extremes" are antithetical to the apathy implied with the UA description. I think the game is poorer for having mushed so many alignment positions together, but clearly there are many who have always thought alignment was hogwash to start with.
The good news is that it's really easy to just go back to using the 3e alignments without disrupting the game... which is what I'm doing :D
Heath Ledger Joker? Chaotic Evil. Man did he pull that off smashingly well. A pure instrument of unbridled chaos.
Best joker as of yet in my opinion, and definitely a poster boy for Chaotic Evil
Interestingly...
Punisher: No idea where he'd fall under new alignment system. He no longer falls under the current 'evil' setup, he's neither a "Its my right to claim what others possess" or a "I don't care what I have to do to get what I want". Most players would play him as 'heroic', in a way he's old school Black and White heroics. Where you can use dread force on clearly identifiable sources of evil.
The Punisher has a good alignment. I say this because D&D characters kill hundreds (maybe even thousands) of living and breathing creatures/people because they are "evil" and are considered Good because they don't **** and pillage and use force for their own benefit.
All the heroes in the marvel-verse that think killing the bad guy is wrong are lawful good.
That would be Chaotic Sexy, to be released with the Alignment Expansion section of Oriental Adventures :D
:D
Seriously though, this is why I dislike 4e's alignment switch so much. UA is really no different than 3e Neutral, and yet people act like they've never seen it before.
I beg to differ on that.
Neutral was about: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships"
Unaligned though is about: "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others"
Very different. Unaligned has lost the personal relationships and instead is more about Evil(Lite).
INeutral was about: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships"
Unaligned though is about: "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others"
Very different. Unaligned has lost the personal relationships and instead is more about Evil(Lite).
I'm not sure where you got your 3.5 definition of Neutral... That's been easily summarized as "non-committed" for ... 20? years at least.
Besides, an Evil character (and the occasional Chaotic Evil character, though this is much more rare) can be just as committed to others by personal relationships. Literature (and history!) is chock-full of tyrants who dote upon their families...
Unaligned is Neutral, certainly. Is this a step off from Evil? Yes, and it always has been. How does that quote go? Oh, yes...
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Neutral was about: "Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships"
Unaligned though is about: "you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others"
Very different. Unaligned has lost the personal relationships and instead is more about Evil(Lite).
So...
3e
Show
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
Nope, its not. It may sound like it (what with it being called "Unaligned" and all....) but the description is almost identical to Evil - the values are the same except as so far Evil is more pro-active.
Unaligned is the person who is happy to knowingly buy sweatshop clothes but doesnt have the gumption to set up a factory themselves.
The vast majority of Americans have no idea where there clothes come from, or who picks their fruit.
I'm surprised if you think this is only one step away from evil, but I suppose that speaks to the nature of the system.
Most people are unaligned. If you think most people are only one step away from true evil, then that's what unaligned is. If you think your character's morality is similar to most people, they are unaligned.
I don't think most people are anywhere near evil. I think unaligned is closer to good, and real evil is an aberration. (maybe common enough in a game world, but rare in reality.)
Best joker as of yet in my opinion, and definitely a poster boy for Chaotic Evil
I'm going to make this pencil disappear!
:OMG!
The line comes from the SRD and the PHB in the description of Neutral (in the Good and Evil section):
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
So 3.5's Neutral's conscience wont allow them to kill the innocent, but they dont care enough to actually forfeit anything of their own to help others (implying that will only do so for rewards). The only people Neutrals are commited to are those they see a personal relationship with; so, Tribalism, with loyalty given to such as Family, Clan, Tribe, Platoon, Nation etc
If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people .... aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, ....they see the benefits of both good and evil
4.0's Unaligned doesnt actively seek to harm others (as "active" is the difference between it and Evil) but they, like neutral before them, wont help others unless they get something out of it. What matters to them is what benefits themselves; law if it does so, freedom if it does so, with impacts on others not being more than a slight and passing consideration.
3.x's Neutral was the alignment of Tribal (personal) loyalty. 4.x's Unaligned is passive selfishness; being opportunistic rather than proactively so.
An unaligned character won't do a strongly good act (like putting their own life in grave risk to save another) or a strongly evil act (like committing murder) without a damn good reason.
A good character, on the other hand, might be willing to face off against a dragon to save a damsel he doesn't even know (but would still need some reason to face a dragon; he's not suicidal!).
An evil character might be willing to kill a political opponent to further her plots, but wouldn't kill someone for sport (at least not in 4e) or no reason at all. That is, she doesn't actively seek to harm others; it is a means to a desired end, rather than a desired end in itself. This is the key difference between E and CE as presented in Fourth Ed.
Is the unaligned character just a step away from being evil? Sure! Just look at the alignment spectrum; they're right next to each other! Similarly, an unaligned character is just a step away from being good.
The difference in alignments is clearly a difference in degree. All but the most two-dimensional good characters have some negative traits, and ditto for evil characters and positive traits. The difference is where they rate their personal well-being compared to that of others. An unaligned character just rates their personal well-being some boring, typical amount above that of other people so that she's seldom tempted to commit murder or martyr herself.
Some people insist good intentions count first, others, that actions count first, my view is both a relevant, and a ruthless hero should slide to unaligned, and maybe through to Evil.
'Active' is the difference between evil and unaligned? Yep! It's also the difference between good and unaligned.
An unaligned character won't do a strongly good act (like putting their own life in grave risk to save another) or a strongly evil act (like committing murder) without a damn good reason.
An EVIL character will do good things if he has a reason too. And it may just be that they(some bad guys) are more fun to kill or because it earns them the trust of some one they want to screw over later.
what about characters who combine Evil with an element of heroism? in the sense that they see people as things to be sacrificed if necessary, for them to achieve whatever they are working for. 40K Inquisitors, or similar types.
Unaligned, they see themselves above the concerns of morality and seek to accomplish their goals.
Richard does some heroic things, but he is evil. He just helps the heroes because he likes killing stuff, and they find stuff to kill.
As I've said in another thread:
You do not play your character in a way because he is evil, your character is evil because of the way you role play him.
This can be applied to all alignments.
'Active' is the difference between evil and unaligned? Yep! It's also the difference between good and unaligned.
An unaligned character won't do a strongly good act (like putting their own life in grave risk to save another) or a strongly evil act (like committing murder) without a damn good reason.
Nope, they wont do either without a reward....which is different....and has a LOT more in common with Evil than it does it with Good.
Its a range of people who might be kind of nice but not really good and kind of mean but not really evil.
Nope, they wont do either without a reward....which is different....and has a LOT more in common with Evil than it does it with Good.
This isn't what the PHB says. It says unaligned characters will do good acts with a reward, but doesn't specify any conditions which would cause them to actively harm others. As long as we're interpreting the PHB alignment descriptive text untenably literally, it seems an unaligned character is incapable of actively harming others!
Far from having more in common with evil characters, by 4e alignment RAW
an unaligned character is incapable of doing any of a huge category of evil acts!Evil = Darth Vader.
This isn't what the PHB says. It says unaligned characters will do good acts with a reward, but doesn't specify any conditions which would cause them to actively harm others. As long as we're interpreting the PHB alignment descriptive text untenably literally, it seems an unaligned character is incapable of actively harming others!
You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others
I see alignment as your 'general mindset'. It may, but may not, represent you 100% of the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Can an evil dude do something heroic? Sure. But either incidentally or sporadically, he might be in a different mood that day, or due to whatever his psych makeup is, a particular event might stir his heroic instincts briefly. But he'll return to evil soon enough.
Just like the good guy can fall for a bit, then return to good.
The unaligned guy, is largely the guy who hasn't made a commitment to anything beyond what affects his immediate circumstances. He might aid friends not so much out of a desire to do good, but out of friendship, or out of desire not to lose a friend.
If you decide to start volunteering at a soup kitchen cause the hot girl in your class encourages you to go (and you think this'll lead somewhere), that'd be unaligned. You're doing good deeds, sure, but your heart really isn't in it. You're not being evil for being there with ulterior motives, unless your ulterior motives stem from desire to kill all the downtrodden, or steal what little cash they have...
[Paraphrased] You're wrong. All of you. The book says...blah, blah, blah...
Have you come to a conclusion about the difference between Unaligned and Evil yet, or are you still hoping that a game designer is going to show up on your thread to explain everything?
TS