PDA

View Full Version : 4e alignment question



monty
2008-06-07, 05:38 PM
I just got a look at a copy of the 4e PHB, and noticed that it only had 5 alignment choices: LG, Good, Evil, CE, and Unaligned. Did I miss more elsewhere, or is that it? In the latter case, why is there no CG or LE (or LN/CN, for that matter)?

Silent Musician
2008-06-07, 05:50 PM
That's it.

And the reason why they didn't include CG or LE was due to that claim that a Good person is someone who is flowing towards the alignment of abiding by that of their own personal reasons. When someone doesn't obey the law, they're considered selfish, and these types of feelings can lead toward evil. I'm going by assumption here, however, so I may be right or wrong, though in philosophy, there's no right answer. Basically, you seek to disturb the law, so Good is basically neutral/chaotic good mixed together.

Evil on the other hand is Lawful/neutral evil mixed together, making a specific chaotic good. The personalities are going by the fact that if you're good, you tend to follow a lawful personality regardless, while being evil means you're going toward chaos, thus wishing for chaos instead of law. That's my take on it.

monty
2008-06-07, 05:52 PM
Ok, so it's just WotC being stupid again. Hey, let's try to make the alignment system make even less sense!

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-07, 05:59 PM
I'm pretty sure I'll ditch Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, myself; or just make them "Really Good" and "Really Evil". That's what they mean, and - fortunately - they have very little rules significance.

Sir_Elderberry
2008-06-07, 06:05 PM
I saw it basically as NG and CG person having, realistically, the same attitude towards law. Do CG people oppose just laws? No. Does a NG person let the law stand in their way of good? No. In that sense, they both feel bound by lawfulness similarly--which is to say, not at all. Similarly, a NE person will take advantage of the laws, etc, to gain power.

kieza
2008-06-07, 06:15 PM
I think one of the deciding factors was that there wasn't a clear dividing line between NG/CG or LE/NE. Any number of characters could qualify for both from the description in the PHB.

NG: You do what you think is necessary to uphold good in the world.
CG: You uphold good regardless of law or tradition.
(Not quotes, don't have my books handy)

Similarly, the difference between LE and NE was that you had a personal code of conduct if you were LE, except that you could have one and be NE, except then you were willing to break it, but that meant it wasn't a code of conduct...I had an argument go on at the table for three sessions over where a character would fall. (It was brought on by a badly-timed use of Dictum, or whatever the spell is, after which one character protested that he'd been trying to roleplay LE for weeks and should have changed before I used the spell.)

I can't really say much about LN/CN, as I never really saw any confusion over that. It does occur to me that they might have been trying to save the DM hassles over characters that are as likely to kick someone off of a bridge as cross it, or characters who would refuse to ever break laws, even when necessary. I never had trouble like that, but I can see a character that took it to extremes being highly disruptive.

puppyavenger
2008-06-07, 06:49 PM
heh, I thought the line was to blurry between NE and CE, not N and L.

Citizen Joe
2008-06-07, 06:56 PM
Just change it to
Angellic
Good
unaligned
Evil
Demonic

Behold_the_Void
2008-06-07, 07:07 PM
Just change it to
Angellic
Good
unaligned
Evil
Demonic

Pretty much. They're trying to make it have less a bearing by making it more general. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are basically the two extremes of the alignment spectrum, most people should be classified as Good, Unaligned, or Evil. I wasn't entirely sold on it, but I like how it works in practice, I just think they should have used something different for Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.

Artanis
2008-06-07, 07:13 PM
There's also the fact that alignment is totally seperate from mechanics now. So in terms of playing the game, it doesn't really matter how much sense it makes, because now it's just another shorthand way of describing the character's outlook. This in turn means you can have whatever personality you want without having to worry about stuff like whether an Axiomatic weapon will hurt more.

monty
2008-06-07, 07:33 PM
Just change it to
Angellic
Good
unaligned
Evil
Demonic

What about devils?

Arakune
2008-06-07, 07:50 PM
What about devils?

EVIL. I like the way of the new distinction between devils and demons. At least now it's clear about their motivations. And it's good that it reflects in their overall look.

wumpus
2008-06-07, 08:11 PM
I think this is one of those places where the streamlining amounts to "remove everything that isn't absolutely necessary to kill them and take there stuff". Under the old system, these were the only alignments that mattered (please mention any fallen barbarians or monks), although there might be a few players who want to give a monk a few levels in barbarian.

Alignments are one of the first things that would go back into the system if I DMed 4e. I think they missed a huge opportunity here to get a good alignment system going. Most characters would start out "barely aligned", that is: they may be saintly good or diabolically evil, just nobody has made it official. With the BoVD and BoED they implied another level of alignments: exaulted and vile. Presumably Paladins would qualify (1-3e, but not 4e) from level 1, and clerics would be pressured into vows/selling of souls as they leveled up. Paragons and Epic heroes would be assumed to be more aligned (have a stronger aura), and the paragon/epic breaks gives natural places to make the changes.

If you want to see a *bad* D&D alignment system, just ask an old-timer about "alignment language" - heh, heh, heh.

AslanCross
2008-06-07, 09:41 PM
Just change it to
Angellic
Good
unaligned
Evil
Demonic

Well, angels are no longer good-only. Their alignment now depends on which god they serve.

I'm not a fan of the new alignment system either, but I can live with it if I changed "Good" to "Chaotic Good" and "Evil" to "Lawful Evil." However, I do think that Neutral Good and Neutral Evil were a bit too vague and overlapped with their Lawful and Chaotic counterparts too much. As such, I think removing them was a good decision.

I think I also prefer the "Unaligned" term to "Neutral," for some reason that I can't quite place. I think it's because it's less of "I will betray you if it suits my needs, good/evil ally!" and more of "Can't we all just get along?"

monty
2008-06-07, 11:12 PM
I think I also prefer the "Unaligned" term to "Neutral," for some reason that I can't quite place. I think it's because it's less of "I will betray you if it suits my needs, good/evil ally!" and more of "Can't we all just get along?"

"I'll betray you if it suits my needs"? Sounds evil to me, not neutral. Neutral is more like "I won't betray you, but I won't help you if it endangers me either."

Enlong
2008-06-07, 11:25 PM
Actually, coming from someone who skimmed the descriptions, it seems like straight 'good' is close to the same attitude as 3.5 'Chaotic Good', and that 4e 'evil' is close to 3.5 'Lawful Evil'. If it makes you feel better, feel free to amend the list accordingly.

StickMan
2008-06-07, 11:58 PM
Why did they even feel the need to keep alignment in the game, a lot of games don't have it why does DND need it at all.

Seems like a very slopy and poorly done fix to the alignment system to me, I'm really against it.

Artanis
2008-06-08, 02:58 PM
Why not keep it? If it has no effect on the mechanics, then there isn't much harm in keeping something that a lot of people expect to be there.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-08, 03:11 PM
A friend on another forum wrote this and he made excellent points so I'm gonna repost it here:

--------
What was wrong with the alignment rules was poor writing and that is all.

The neutral on the good/evil axis was poorly defined, and evil itself was poorly defined.

Neutrality in good/evil meant one of two things; unaligned due to laziness (which is what it means now) or fence-sitting. Many players took this to mean "doing good or evil things on a whim is fine, so long as I don't lean heavily one way or the other. So I'll save this orphan from a fire, and then stab this hobo." This is, of course, ridiculous; no one acts that way. The more appropriate take on neutrality, is laziness which is what they went with in the new unaligned choice. They go about their days looking for the easiest path to success with the least amount of work, like 90% of people in all societies. It's the catch-all "normals" alignment. As such, I've never felt it was a good fit for heroic people and have mostly excluded it from my games as a playable alignment. Not that I'm restricting anyone's play-style, it's just that no one wants to play the guy who doesn't do stuff because it would put him and/or his loved ones in danger so it doesn't affect anyone. If players want questionable heroes, they have choices on either the good or the evil spectrum that better fit the bill than lazy, selfishness.

The problem with evil is that the vagueness led to people playing "chaotic stupid," where they felt that it was important to stab, shoot, mug, lie to, extort, suspect, defile, and set fire to every single NPC they come across. Nobody in real life ever acts like this, why the hell would a fantasy character do it?

ghost_warlock
2008-06-08, 04:19 PM
What I'll miss most with 4e alignments:
http://www.geocities.com/wrarx/lawfulevil.jpg

Gavin Sage
2008-06-08, 04:37 PM
The Alignment system has never been that great. I remember some descriptions for True Neutral that had it as keeping an active balance between good an evil while eschewing both. And while this was noted as hard, it still makes no sense. Then there was True Neutral as big fat nothing. That said even if it was hard to define I think the Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil dynamic underlies a lot of depth that will now be harder to create.

Case in point: Devils versus Demons are now different how? Does D&D really want the position that Demons are somehow "worse" then Devils now? I mean wanting the annhilation of everything is all very horrible, but systematic, sustained, orderly evil is totally different but just as evil.

While there is an argument I think for cutting down the Alignment, their choices puzzle me. Why not have LG, CG, LE, CE, and Unaligned? This preserves the best potential for conflict between characters who are otherwise on the same side with the Law versus Chaos dynamic. And I dare say there are more people out there used to playing Chaotic Good then there are Neutral Good. And nothing is more badass then Lawful Evil.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-08, 04:43 PM
While there is an argument I think for cutting down the Alignment, their choices puzzle me. Why not have LG, CG, LE, CE, and Unaligned? This preserves the best potential for conflict between characters who are otherwise on the same side with the Law versus Chaos dynamic. And I dare say there are more people out there used to playing Chaotic Good then there are Neutral Good. And nothing is more badass then Lawful Evil.

They pretty much have done this, though they renamed it. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good have always pretty much meant the same thing: A person who will not always follow the law of the land if their actions serve a greater good. While at the same time Lawful Evil people and Neutral Evil people have always been pretty much: I live by my code of conduct and will always put my intentions before the well being of others no matter what actions I have to do in the process.

monty
2008-06-08, 04:48 PM
They pretty much have done this, though they renamed it. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good have always pretty much meant the same thing: A person who will not always follow the law of the land if their actions serve a greater good. While at the same time Lawful Evil people and Neutral Evil people have always been pretty much: I live by my code of conduct and will always put my intentions before the well being of others no matter what actions I have to do in the process.

That doesn't matter, though. They're still presenting Lawful Good as "more good" than regular Good, and Chaotic Evil as "more evil."

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-08, 04:53 PM
It was ALWAYS presented like that

That's why Paladins had to be Lawful good

Roderick_BR
2008-06-08, 04:54 PM
What I understood of it from the previews (still need to get the books :smallfrown: ) is that alignment now is like this
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/ExRPG/alignments.jpg
It was just made so people stoped whinning about how the alignment system was (insert dozens of adjectives here). Thing is, D&D is not an amoral game. As they said, the "good vs evil" is a classic theme. If you remove it from D&D, it is no longer D&D, but some generic medieval fantasy game. What they did was to simplify things.
Unaligned just means normal people.
If you do go around kicking puppies and setting hobos on fire, you slip to evil. If you stab every single creature and take their stuff, you'll go to chaotic evil (could use a better name, really).
If you activelly try to be good, helping people around, protecting the innocent, etc, you are good. If you go the hero route, risking your life to save the world, etc, you are lawful good (once again, a better name would be better).
To me, it sounds like what they got rid was the chaos/law axis. How you act (at a whim, or with carefuly crafted plans) is not so much important now. What matters is if you are good or evil.
You can remember how parties works in 3.x. If you have a chaotic good and a lawful good character in the group, they'll argue on how to do things, but will mostly be fine. If you have a chaotic evil and a lawful evil character in a part, the same happens. But if you have an chaotic evil and a chaotic good (or other evil/good combination) characters in the party... However, I see too many people wasting hours arquing about how chaos/law works, and how should be played, when, in the end, it doesn't matter. They just cut off half the problem.
Then there's what someone called "dissossiated mechanics". 4e is missing a chance to make the alignment system work fine with the rest of the game, that's true.

Morty
2008-06-08, 04:56 PM
It was ALWAYS presented like that

That's why Paladins had to be Lawful good

No, it wasn't? LG wasn't inherently more Good than other Good alignments, and there wasn't anything in the rules that'd imply that. Paladins needed to be LG because they're fighting not only for good, but also to uphold the law.

monty
2008-06-08, 05:02 PM
It was ALWAYS presented like that

That's why Paladins had to be Lawful good

No, it wasn't. Paladins only have to be Lawful because they follow a strict code (monks have to be lawful, but they aren't necessarily more good than, say bards).

Looking at the alignment descriptions in the SRD:

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
...
Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
...
Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

It even goes into how Neutral can be more "good" than Good:

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
...
Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
...
Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Now for evil. Apparently, they are all "worst"; chaotic evil isn't more so:

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
...
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
...
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

I don't see it "presented like that." I see a reasonable argument for each of the alignments being good or bad.

Artanis
2008-06-08, 05:06 PM
Case in point: Devils versus Demons are now different how? Does D&D really want the position that Demons are somehow "worse" then Devils now? I mean wanting the annhilation of everything is all very horrible, but systematic, sustained, orderly evil is totally different but just as evil.
Wait...you just described one HELL of a difference, but still can't figure out how they're different just because one doesn't have "lawful" in front of its alignment?

I...I cannot fathom how one word in an RP-ONLY aspect of the game is more important than being virtual opposites with drastically different origin, home, goals, methods, and even the substance that forms their bodies.

Gavin Sage
2008-06-08, 05:06 PM
They pretty much have done this, though they renamed it. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good have always pretty much meant the same thing: A person who will not always follow the law of the land if their actions serve a greater good. While at the same time Lawful Evil people and Neutral Evil people have always been pretty much: I live by my code of conduct and will always put my intentions before the well being of others no matter what actions I have to do in the process.

Except Chaotic Good could also include a fundamental distrust of order and law. Not merely objecting to tyrants but maybe even objecting to nation-states in favor of smaller local governments. Or codified honor codes, versus an emotional "in-the-moment" approach. Sure these are possible under the 4E system, but it implies a lack of respect for all possiblities.

Where's does this alignment system allow for a Libertarian and a Socialist to have there personal disputes over how to do the most good for the most people. Or the Paladin and the Anti-Hero? When you have "Lawful Good" versus "Good" this makes those conflicts far less obvious. And Lawful Good inherently gets more respect because it is more defined and identifiable.

Its not that its impossible but its inherently more fufilling to have the respect of being Chaotic Good as a perfectly valid path in life, not being placed in any way as inferior to Lawful Good.

puppyavenger
2008-06-08, 05:08 PM
They pretty much have done this, though they renamed it. Neutral Good and Chaotic Good have always pretty much meant the same thing: A person who will not always follow the law of the land if their actions serve a greater good. While at the same time Lawful Evil people and Neutral Evil people have always been pretty much: I live by my code of conduct and will always put my intentions before the well being of others no matter what actions I have to do in the process.

Actually, I thought Ne and CE were the smiler ones. They both mean "doing whatever gets you the best stuff, without being constrained by any ethical code.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-08, 05:15 PM
You know there are things called Personalities. Why don't you just use those to make the distinction?

In our new campaign I have a neutral warlock and my friend has a neutral pally. I have more of a collective personality while he is more spastic and quick to act.

Read Artanis's post, he pretty much hit the nail on the head on the word issue

EvilElitest
2008-06-08, 08:07 PM
Ok, so it's just WotC being stupid again. Hey, let's try to make the alignment system make even less sense!

here is the irony actually. In 3E we have a good, if badly organized and horribly backed up alignment system if you like the idea of objective alignment. If you like an aligment system where good and evil are made clear from the get go and are not left to personal option, if right and wrong are subjective)


Now if you don't like objective morals, fine, then go with subjective, like those found in say, Song of Fire and Ice. in 4E, we have the pretense of an objective alignement system without even the pretense of complexity. It is like its trying to appeal to both crowds. On one hand it painting the picture of being subjective, allowing "greater complexity" and more moral grey (3E actually had moral greyness in fact, it allowed even more, just it was a lot, and i mean a lot more subtle and complex, PM if you want the whole story) and hte pretense of moral greyness. now if 4E had no alignment system what so ever, then i'd be personally anger but i'd at least understand it, and i'd have no problem casting off the old system. However, almost in an attempt to not seem too "radical" it tries to keep the old alignment system. It hangs onto in a manner that seem like it is is trying to only keep the pretense of the old alignment system, like it is putting up fake and calling it real. It is like they are taking only the basic conception of the aligment, not the deeper understanding and the real purpose of it. It is like only hte bones are being thrown at us, scattered and being told that is the real thing, then re arranged into a new body the resembles some entirely different. And while the new body itself isn't a bad one, when mixed with these scattered bones it becomes only an abomination, an cross breed combination that falls apart under its own weight
from
EE

monty
2008-06-09, 02:24 PM
Looking at it again, my original complaint may have been a bit unclear. I don't particularly have a problem with 4e's alignment system; I just don't like the terminology they use. Why should somebody who unquestionably does what the law says is right be more good than someone who does what they believe to be right regardless of what society says (either NG or CG, depending on how you look at it, but certainly not lawful)? The same goes for evil. Why is Belkar now more evil than Nale, just because he's chaotic (if you don't know what I'm talking about, stop reading this thread and go read OotS now)? Both might kill, say, 100 people, but the former does it out of boredom while the latter does it as part of an elaborate plot to take over the world. Is random destruction more evil than organized destruction, just because it doesn't serve a purpose (an evil purpose, that is)?

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-09, 02:46 PM
Is random destruction more evil than organized destruction, just because it doesn't serve a purpose (an evil purpose, that is)?

Yes, yes it is!

Chaotic evil is like the Joker, doing it because killing people and watching them suffer is funny to you.

Evil is sort of like what the diamond slavers in Africa do. They're evil as all piss, but they have a general reason they do it.

Indon
2008-06-09, 03:18 PM
Personally, I would have preferred a merging of the Alignment system of 3'rd edition D&D with the Allegiances system used by a few D20 systems.

monty
2008-06-09, 05:24 PM
Yes, yes it is!

Chaotic evil is like the Joker, doing it because killing people and watching them suffer is funny to you.

Evil is sort of like what the diamond slavers in Africa do. They're evil as all piss, but they have a general reason they do it.

How is that worse, though? Why is killing someone for no reason worse than killing someone for your own personal benefit? If anything, I'd say Lawful is more evil, because you're doing something evil for an evil purpose rather than just personal pleasure.

ideasmith
2008-06-09, 05:35 PM
My guess as to what happened:

They put LG and CE back in due to playtester demand (like the 3e monk/paladin multiclassing restrictions). There must have been less demand for CG and LE. Go figure.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-09, 05:44 PM
So, alignment.

(Rant)
It is certainly one of the core concepts of D&D. As a previous poster noted, "good vs. evil" is a central conflict in heroic fantasy generally, and has been in D&D since the beginning (see: Paladins). WotC appears (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080602a) to have simplified it for the same reason they simplified everything else: it made the game run smoother. Additionally, it was much easier for novice players to pick up - and anyone who has run into a "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Stupid" type can attest to this fact.

As far as I can tell, WotC just dropped the ball when they referred to Absolute Good and Absolute Evil as "Lawful" and "Chaotic." It's just poor writing on their part, and feeds the misconception that LG and CE are, in fact, the most good and most evil alignments. Rather, LG is the most restrictive Good alignment as CE is the least restrictive Evil alignment. That is why Paladins with rigid moral codes used to have to be LG and many of the most world-destroying BBEGs were CE.

But the traditional alignment system has merits. It is intelligible (NE and CE are different; look at Redcloak and Xykon). It can provide a foundation for your character concept that is more durable than "outcast from an evil society" or "likes swords." And most importantly, it provided a moral framework that could be applied to anything from individuals to nations.

But it is complicated. WotC doesn't want to be on the hook when some 12 year old asks his mother why LG paladins sometimes get along with LN fascists, or why NE thieves might assist his party against the CE necromancer bent on turning the entire town into zombies. And it surely doesn't want to turn away potential gamers just because some folks have trouble understanding the interactions between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil.

If you don't like the alignment change, do what I do: ignore it. Unlike Skill Challenges, Encounter Powers, or the like, alignment is something that is really easy to tweak without damaging the rest of the system. Heck, I plan to introduce powers/items that afflict Evil people and leave Good people alone, and vice versa. If you don't like alignment at all, then make everyone unaligned, or ignore it entirely (though to be frank, if you don' like alignment, perhaps you'd be better off with a different system).

Okay, side-comments:

1) The Law and Chaos afflictions, I never liked so much, to be honest. They had their uses, to be sure, but I always felt a little funny thinking about someone enchanting a blade to be super-lawful. Or super-chaotic... kind of like magical anarchists or something. Matter of personal taste, I suppose.
2) True Neutral was an abomination of an alignment. It was unplayable as a PC (you either broke alignment, or your party killed yo), and only usable by a select few villains I found in supplements... who, to be honest, were really, really creepy. "Neutral" has always made sense to me, but LN and CN are clearly different and should not be lumped together as "unaligned"
3) NG/CG and NE/CE are as different as LG/LN or CN/CE. The short answer is that a NX character will think about the laws, as a factor themselves when making decisions. If a CX character considers the laws, it is only in terms of whether the guys they piss off will cause them too much trouble as a result. That's why your "lovable rogue" might be CG but never NG.

Realms of Chaos
2008-06-09, 05:48 PM
Think of it this way. Between a LE outsider and a CE outsider, which do you think is more likely to work towards the destruction of all around them (the ultimate expression of evil). Seeing as the Fiendish Codex II makes that out to be the demons and not the devils, I'm leaning towards CE. Between the two outsiders, which is more likely to rely on subtlety, keeping more of their evil internalized (at least for as long as is required). knowing what we do about demons and devils, I'm leaning towards LE.

Although I may not agree with this point, I believe that WotC is trying to express the opinion that people who manifest their evil extrinsically are more evil than those who manifest it more intrinsically.

As a similar comparison, an evil person who dreams about kicking puppies and plots to do so in secret is less evil than the guy who actually goes around doing so with reckless abandon, regardless of the consequences.

On the good side of the spectrum, CG individuals tend to have good morals but keep them to themselves (respecting the freedom of others to do as they choose). Meanwhile, LG individuals not only have morals but try to press them onto the world around them.

As an example, between the stereotypical Holier-than-thou LG paladin and the CG rogue who the paladin is chastising for robbing a store (he needed the tanglefoot bag he robbed to stop a criminal), it is a bit easier to think of the paladin as more good as he expresses it extrinsically and will not compromise the generally accepted principles of what is acceptible (law).

In closing, I believe that WotC thought that morals are based both upon intention and generally accepted values (laws). someone with good intentions who accepts these values is thus more good while someone with bad intentions who spurns these values is more evil.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 05:07 PM
This is another one of those amusing areas where 4E is arguably closer to its roots than it ever has been. OD&D, after all, defined only "Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic" as its Alignment possibilities, with "Lawful" and "Good" being functionally identical.

The old "two axis" system never worked, primarily because "law versus chaos" was just nowhere near as archetypal as "Good versus Evil" and in practice it was hard to distinguish between half the alignments.

The current Alignment system basically makes sense for a particular type of Fantasy, one where you have the Champions of Goodness fighting the Howling Hordes of Evil.

Essentially "Lawful Good" means "Champion of Goodness" not just a nice person but an active servant of Light against Darkness.

Good is less stringent, it's basically somebody who is "on the right side" but not totally dedicated to the cause of Goodness (which in D&D is an objective thing and always has been).

Unaligned is ... well it's unaligned. It's neither on one side nor the other.

Evil is a nasty, horrible person, somebody who active supports the darkness that wants to eat the world.

Chaotic Evil is the thing that wants to eat the world.

The interesting thing about the current alignment system is that it's actually rather nicely customizable. In the default setting, the deal is that Goodness gathers together in these nice, orderly clumps while Evil is a horrific swarming tide that wants to devour it. Hence Law is associated with Goodness and Lawful Good is the highest form of Good, while the worst kind of evil is the kind of evil that just wants to destroy *everything*.

You could equally well imagine a setting where Evil was the organized force and Good was trying to tear it down, in which case you could replace the "top" with CG and the "bottom" with LE. Or you could just trim it back to general "good" versus "evil", or you could have "law" and "Chaos" going off the ends of the scale, like in old WFRP (where "lawful" while technically above Good, was utterly psychotic).

THAC0
2008-06-10, 05:34 PM
This is another one of those amusing areas where 4E is arguably closer to its roots than it ever has been. OD&D, after all, defined only "Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic" as its Alignment possibilities, with "Lawful" and "Good" being functionally identical.

The old "two axis" system never worked, primarily because "law versus chaos" was just nowhere near as archetypal as "Good versus Evil" and in practice it was hard to distinguish between half the alignments.

The current Alignment system basically makes sense for a particular type of Fantasy, one where you have the Champions of Goodness fighting the Howling Hordes of Evil.

Essentially "Lawful Good" means "Champion of Goodness" not just a nice person but an active servant of Light against Darkness.

Good is less stringent, it's basically somebody who is "on the right side" but not totally dedicated to the cause of Goodness (which in D&D is an objective thing and always has been).

Unaligned is ... well it's unaligned. It's neither on one side nor the other.

Evil is a nasty, horrible person, somebody who active supports the darkness that wants to eat the world.

Chaotic Evil is the thing that wants to eat the world.

The interesting thing about the current alignment system is that it's actually rather nicely customizable. In the default setting, the deal is that Goodness gathers together in these nice, orderly clumps while Evil is a horrific swarming tide that wants to devour it. Hence Law is associated with Goodness and Lawful Good is the highest form of Good, while the worst kind of evil is the kind of evil that just wants to destroy *everything*.

You could equally well imagine a setting where Evil was the organized force and Good was trying to tear it down, in which case you could replace the "top" with CG and the "bottom" with LE. Or you could just trim it back to general "good" versus "evil", or you could have "law" and "Chaos" going off the ends of the scale, like in old WFRP (where "lawful" while technically above Good, was utterly psychotic).


Thank you!

Conners
2008-06-10, 06:01 PM
Thinking about the change, I actually like it. There isn't much of a great difference between NG and CG--one breaks the law cuz it's for good and one doesn't care about the law in the first place, right? It can be hard as heck to decide where a character you haven't fully developed yet will land, alignment-wise, so this makes it easier for that, too.

Also, BEST THING OF ALL ABOUT THIS: You can RP a character without worrying, "Wait, I think I'm being Chaotic Good instead of Normal Good!"

Draztik
2008-06-10, 06:17 PM
My gaming group and I are considering converting our campaign to 4e, but I'm almost unsure if we could even do it. My group primarily plays in the dragonlance setting. with the new alignment options and the removal of LE.

I was wondering how some of you would work that in witht he Knights fo Takhisis and Orders of Magic where the knights and the blackrobes while evil are required to be Lawful.

Or is it impossible at this point to run 4e in a DL campaign setting?

Hopin maybe some of you dm's out there could come up with ways to work 4e into dragonlance for us.

Thanks in advance.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 06:23 PM
Lawful Evil = Evil.

Not everything has to be expressed as a component of a character's alignment, a faction could have a particular code which didn't have any Alignment-based implications.

nepphi
2008-06-10, 06:32 PM
I will agree, the half-arsed alignment system shouldn't have been bothered with. I'd have left it either as-is (those of us who prefer not to use the system could get by) or just leave it out entirely (vice versa, it doesn't take a ton to drag in the old alignments if you feel the need).

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 06:33 PM
4th ed evil is flavoured with Law and Good flavoured with mild to moderate Chaos. they just aren't Called Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good anymore. Evil types are a bit less honest than classic LE, though they are tyrant types. Very Vader "I'm altering the deal"

Useful notes: Clerics and paladins suffer no mechanical penalty for changing alignment. a Chaotic Evil paladin of Bahamut would still have all his powers (but paladins are required to start out with same alignment as deity).

Clerics can always start unaligned, or their deity's alignment, and clerics of unaligned gods can start out with any alignment, and, like paladins, suffer no penalty for changing to normally forbidden alignments.

Unaligned covers LN, CN, N. and those who see benefits of both Good and Evil but refuse to pick sides (N)

So traits aren't entirely tied to alignments any more. Dragonborn are uberhonorable but can be of any alignment: what would a CE honorable chracter be like? Maybe someone who always insists on fighting fair, even if he is working to tear civilization down and dance on the ruins.

hamishspence
2008-06-10, 06:41 PM
i like some of the answers it gives, like: will a LG person support Rule of Law when it crosses all the way into out-and-out tyranny: answer: No. Your LG paladin can support a rebellion against an utterly evil, legal tyrant.

Also, given that races can be of any alignment, and dragonborn are described as very honorable, could you have a CE dragonborn who adheres to a code of honor, while still doing horrible CE things? Possibly. It would be an interesting change.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-10, 10:34 PM
The new alignments should be called Really Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Really Evil.

Takhisis is Really Evil. At the start, most of the Knights of Takhisis would probably be Evil and Really Evil, with some Unaligned. Later on, the Knights of Takhisis/Neraka would probably be mostly Evil and Unaligned.

I actually enjoy the new alignment system, since it really puts some ambiguity into the best of organisations. Most of the Knights of Solamnia before and early in the War of the Lance would be Unaligned, but once faith takes root again, most become Good and Lawful Good...

One way to think think about it is that the Chaotic Evil characters are the ones who are fanatical enough to actively seek the end of the world if that's part of their dogma; Evil and Unaligned characters wouldn't go that far.

SadisticFishing
2008-06-10, 11:17 PM
The new alignments should be called Really Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Really Evil.


No, no, definitely not. Absolutely not.

Lawful Good = Lawful Good
Good = Neutral Good, Chaotic Good
Unaligned = Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral
Evil = Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil = Chaotic Evil

monty
2008-06-10, 11:28 PM
Thinking about the change, I actually like it. There isn't much of a great difference between NG and CG--one breaks the law cuz it's for good and one doesn't care about the law in the first place, right?

I'd disagree with that. Rather, one considers the law in their decisions but doesn't feel bound by it, while the other disregards it completely and only obeys the law by coincidence. Completely different things.

Also, Law and Chaos refer to far more than just social structure. Lawful people tend to be more organized, with daily routines and so on, while Chaotic people tend to be more disorganized and/or spontaneous.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 01:45 AM
I'd disagree with that. Rather, one considers the law in their decisions but doesn't feel bound by it, while the other disregards it completely and only obeys the law by coincidence. Completely different things.


This, here, is the meat of the reason why the alignment system had to be changed. Because it is something where reasonable people may disagree as to what NG or CG or whatever means. The most painful part of changing groups, IMO, is figuring out just what everyone considers alignment to be. Simplifying the system, while not completely eliminating the problem, makes it much easier to handle.

monty
2008-06-11, 03:38 PM
This, here, is the meat of the reason why the alignment system had to be changed. Because it is something where reasonable people may disagree as to what NG or CG or whatever means. The most painful part of changing groups, IMO, is figuring out just what everyone considers alignment to be. Simplifying the system, while not completely eliminating the problem, makes it much easier to handle.

Again, that's why I don't like the terminology they use. Lawful Good is just as different from regular Good as Chaotic is. What's the difference between Lawful and Neutral Good? NG obeys the law, except when they have a problem with it. Does a LG person always obey the law, every single time? No, unless they're Lawful Stupid. You can say NG/CG is vague, but so is LG/NG. It's supposed to be a continuum; there's supposed to be gray areas.

THAC0
2008-06-11, 03:43 PM
Again, that's why I don't like the terminology they use. Lawful Good is just as different from regular Good as Chaotic is. What's the difference between Lawful and Neutral Good? NG obeys the law, except when they have a problem with it. Does a LG person always obey the law, every single time? No, unless they're Lawful Stupid. You can say NG/CG is vague, but so is LG/NG. It's supposed to be a continuum; there's supposed to be gray areas.

As I said, it didn't completely eliminate the problem. I'd've been fine with a Good-neutral-evil system, but the law versus chaos has been an important dichotomy from OD&D, so I don't blame them for leaving that aspect in.

evanway2
2010-09-26, 03:31 PM
Dude that sucks 5 alignments :furious:

DeltaEmil
2010-09-26, 03:41 PM
I concur. These are five too many alignments. :smallwink:

Perhaps 5th edition will have 2 alignments: "My way", and "Them". :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2010-09-26, 04:17 PM
It was just made so people stoped whinning about how the alignment system was (insert dozens of adjectives here).
And indeed, we no longer have threads discussing alignment. Oh, wait... :smalltongue:


As they said, the "good vs evil" is a classic theme. If you remove it from D&D, it is no longer D&D,
As I recall, the first edition of D&D only had the Law/Chaos axis (which was, ahem, inspired by a then-famous fantasy series by Michael Moorcock).

WitchSlayer
2010-09-26, 05:48 PM
I'm fine with it, it's basically just more vague, for example, if you made a chart of good, evil on the Y Axis and law, chaos on the X axis, Unaligned, Evil, and Good would just be the bigger parts, where you are more likely to fall into the chart. The rest is up to you to roleplay if you really want that distinction, it doesn't matter much. People always complain about the alignment system and how it's too absolute, but really, if you consider it a graph it's more like which one you lean towards the most.

Black_Zawisza
2010-09-26, 06:01 PM
I've always thought of it like this: LG and CG are actually less "good" than NG. LG are more willing to tolerate injustice if it's committed by an authority figure, and CG are less willing to do good if it involves cooperating with the authorities.

As for the Evil side of things, I'm less sure. But I've never played anything other than Good characters, so...

joe
2010-09-26, 06:40 PM
Another alignment thread... yay... (and yet I find myself attracted to them.)

I was initially against the 4th edition alignment system, though after while I grew accustom to it, and sort of grew to like it.

Basically they combined NG and CG into "Good" and LE and NE into "Evil". I wasn't really too pleased that all the neutrals got combined into a single "Unaligned" I find it a bit odd to combine LN and CN into a single alignment. (Though many CNs are arguably Chaotic Evil anyhow.)

Alignment doesn't really play a part in 4e. So you could just as easily use the 3.5 system, the allegiance system from modern, or no system at all. I don't really see it making a whole lot of difference in that regard.

One thing I noticed that no one has really brought up, is that in 4e, at least in fluff, the cosmology seems to still center on the law v chaos axis. The Astral Sea denizens tend to be either Lawful Good or Evil, whereas the Elemental Chaos tends to have creatures that are Good or Chaotic Evil (and both naturally have Unaligned.) So it seems that while they got rid of the official alignments, they still maintain a sort of Law vs Chaos at least in fluff.

That was just my observations, I haven't honestly played a whole lot of 4th. But for what I've seen, it seems a lot more versatile and probably has a lot less dispute than 3.5.

TheEmerged
2010-09-26, 07:49 PM
As to the original topic, I just ignore the new alignment system. It has no game effect now, so there's no reason to shoehorn character concepts into it now.


I saw it basically as NG and CG person having, realistically, the same attitude towards law. Do CG people oppose just laws? No. Does a NG person let the law stand in their way of good? No. In that sense, they both feel bound by lawfulness similarly--which is to say, not at all. Similarly, a NE person will take advantage of the laws, etc, to gain power.

Well, here's the way I've always done that split. Your mileage (and opinion of Batman's alignment) will probably differ.

Neutral Good. You don't care how you get there, the point is doing good. When the law works, you use it. When freedom works, you use it. You don't really care about either one. There are times when the law gets in the way, and there are times when rights & freedoms get in the way. And anything that gets in the way of doing good is an obstacle to either ignore/get around, or eliminate.

Lawful Good. You see that as being a redundant term. To you, the law *is* good. Now your law may not be society's law (personally, I think Batman is somewhere between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral), in fact chances are it isn't. You dislike Neutral Good people because you feel like they take shortcuts that will just cause more problems in the long run, and you think Chaotic Good is a contradiction in terms.

Chaotic Good. You see the law as being evil. See that quote in my signature? In your mind, the knights are *always* the monsters. The law restricts and restrains people; ultimately, the law is about enslaving people and keeping them from doing genuine good. So you will actively destroy or fight the law where you feel you can.

Vaynor
2010-09-26, 09:31 PM
The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.