[4e]- Final Preview: Alignment

[SamTheCleric]

Here ya go (Im suprised this hasn't been posted yet... it probably has and my search-fu just sucks)

Spoiler

Show

In today’s final preview article, we look at the nature of good vs. evil – and more importantly, what these terms mean for your character!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like everything else for 4th Edition of D&D, we thought long and hard about the alignment system we wanted to launch with the new edition. The struggle of good heroes against evil villains is one D&D’s core tenants. The D&D alignment system possesses a heritage and brand identity we did not want to lose. If we could overcome a couple of issues associated with the traditional alignment system without introducing new problems, we knew that we absolutely had to preserve the system so players could still talk about their lawful good paladin or the chaotic evil demon they vanquished.

As we saw it, several issues plagued D&D alignment, including:

A character’s alignment, chosen at character creation, can become a straight-jacket on that character’s actions. Consider the paladin we’ve all seen in play, “I had to attack the rogue, I’m lawful good,” or the rogue, “I’m chaotic good! That means sometimes I push you off the bridge; come on, don’t get mad!” or some similar sentiment when presented with a role-playing choice. For this reason, many characters stuck with neutral: a nebulous self-serving alignment (as was then defined), a “me first” mentality that didn’t necessarily promote party cohesion either.


In 3rd Edition, choosing an alignment usually had the unfortunate mechanical repercussion of making the aligned player vulnerable to an opposing aligned attack of a foe. It’s not really ideal that being good made you more vulnerable to demonic attacks, for instance. Another reason some players stuck with the neutral alignment of previous editions.


The alignment system was tied to game cosmology, in ways that sometimes translated to physical effects that didn’t lead to fun gameplay.
So we came up with a new alignment system for 4th Edition, though one not completely unlike the previous version. It saves most of the old terms, if not their cosmological or gameplay significance. If any statement can sum up the new system, it is: “Alignment means making an effort.” --Michele Carter.

Thus was born the concept of unaligned. More importantly, the concept that unaligned is benign. Being unaligned is not the neutral alignment of previous editions. Someone who is unaligned is assumed to be an “easy-going” and sometimes even helpful person, especially when it’s easy to be helpful. Just like in real life, where it’s arguable that many people (cocooned in their routines and safe lives provided by a supporting civilization) are unaligned, your fantasy character can enjoy the same freedom from thinking too hard about morality but still be granted the benefit of doubt when they are judged.

Of course, many players will feel benign isn’t good enough, and so declare themselves good or lawful good. These characters are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to uphold a virtue or save an innocent’s life, even if there is the very real possibility they could lose their own life in the process. Such willingness for self-sacrifice is not benign; it is good.
--Bruce Cordell


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you choose an alignment, you’re indicating your character’s dedication to a set of moral principles: good, lawful good, evil, or chaotic evil. In a cosmic sense, it’s the team you believe in and fight for most strongly.

Alignment
A character’s alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral stance:

Good: Freedom and kindness.
Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
For the purpose of determining whether an effect functions on a character, someone of lawful good alignment is considered good and someone of chaotic evil alignment is considered evil. For instance, a lawful good character can use a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters.

Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than deities or any other allegiance you might have. If you’re a high-level cleric with a lawful good alignment, you’re on the same team as Bahamut, regardless of whether you worship that deity. Bahamut is not in any sense the captain of your team, just a particularly important player (who has a large number of supporters).

Most people in the world, and plenty of player characters, haven’t signed up to play on any team—they’re unaligned. Picking and adhering to an alignment represents a distinct choice.

If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.

Here’s what the four alignments (and being unaligned) mean.

The Good Alignment
Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do.

If you’re a good character, you believe it is right to aid and protect those in need. You’re not required to sacrifice yourself to help others or to completely ignore your own needs, but you might be asked to place others’ needs above your own.... in some cases, even if that means putting yourself in harm’s way. In many ways, that’s the essence of being a heroic adventurer:

The people of the town can’t defend themselves from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the dungeon—at significant personal risk—to put an end to the goblin raids.

You can follow rules and respect authority, but you’re keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens, you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly.

It’s better for authority to rest in the members of a community rather than the hands of any individual or social class. When law becomes exploitation, it crosses into evil territory, and good characters feel compelled to fight it.

Good and evil represent fundamentally different viewpoints, cosmically opposed and unable to coexist in peace. Good and lawful good characters, though, get along fine—even if a good character thinks a lawful good companion might be a little too focused on following the law, rather than simply doing the right thing.

The Lawful Good Alignment
An ordered society protects us from evil.

If you’re lawful good, you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws, and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. Just authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful good characters believe just as strongly as good ones do in the value of life, and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what’s right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.

When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so.

However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods.

The Evil Alignment
It is my right to claim what others possess.

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. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them.

The Chaotic Evil Alignment
I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want.

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.

By the standards of good and lawful good people, chaotic evil is as abhorrent as evil, perhaps even more so. Chaotic evil monsters such as demons and orcs are at least as much of a threat to civilization and general well-being as evil monsters are. An evil creature and a chaotic evil creature are both opposed to good, but they don’t have much respect for each other either and rarely cooperate toward common goals.

Unaligned
Just let me go about my business.

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, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.

And some art!

Spoiler

Show

[Zocelot]

Behavior wise, good seems to equal chaotic good, and evil is lawful evil. They say that unaligned is not neutral, but I'm sure many people will play their characters as neutral anyway. All in all, it's a cleaner system, but a tad confusing due to the changes form 3.5e.

[MorkaisChosen]

There is something missing. Unaligned can be summed up as "meh." What isn't there is your Druidic Neutral- there's nothing to represent "Balance!"

[Reel On, Love]

There is something missing. Unaligned can be summed up as "meh." What isn't there is your Druidic Neutral- there's nothing to represent "Balance!"

Yeah?

GOOD.

[Tengu]

What isn't there is your Druidic Neutral- there's nothing to represent "Balance!"

Agreed with RoL - this is the most idiotic alignment ever. If you really have to include it, you can shuffle it under (deluded) Evil.

[Hunter Noventa]

There is something missing. Unaligned can be summed up as "meh." What isn't there is your Druidic Neutral- there's nothing to represent "Balance!"

All Druids are all about balance. Good or Evil is just how they go about preserving it.

[Duke of URL]

They can try to justify it all they want, it still comes across as "some people have no concept of how to properly roleplay alignment, so we'll cater to them and screw over the people who actually know how to roleplay".

It's one thing to have a DM or player group decide not to use alignment, it's entirely another issue to have the system impose an "alignment for dummies" system that makes alignment practically irrelevant.

[Edea]

Maybe there are people who'd actually want to play that kind of Neutral, I dunno. However, I -do- know why, nowadays, I almost always pick True Neutral (or in this case 'Unaligned') as my alignment; I just don't really care to get into any debates on morals with other characters. Usually I like doing something good, but if I need to do something...questionable...at any time, due to the fact that it happens to be the most effective course of action, at least people won't pull the alignment card on me at the table (had that happen before, and I wasn't even playing a character that was mechanically affected by alignment! It was a complete debacle. I just got sick of it). Long ago I used to play CG and/or NG ('Good' now, I suppose), but not anymore.

[Kurald Galain]

They can try to justify it all they want, it still comes across as "some people have no concept of how to properly roleplay alignment, so we'll cater to them and screw over the people who actually know how to roleplay".

The problem is that if you take any two people who believe they "have a concept of how to properly roleplay alignment", they will most likely vehemently disagree with one another.

As evidenced in every single "what alignment is X" or "how to play alignment Y" thread in this or similar forums.

[Telonius]

I'm quite happy about this change. The previous way of doing it encouraged people to play alignments instead of playing characters. When there really aren't as many mechanical effects based off of moral choices, players will feel a bit more free to develop the character.

[nagora]

There is something missing. Unaligned can be summed up as "meh." What isn't there is your Druidic Neutral- there's nothing to represent "Balance!"

True Neutral was never the alignment of druids, that was a misconception that crept in with 2ed. Druids are non-aligned.

I've written a small campaign outline on this subject (PDF) for 1ed.

Druids having an alignment makes as much sense as a dog having an alignment, as such they are just "neutral" with a small 'n'. True Neutral is the alignment of insane people and deities with a very particular view of the multiverse, IMO.

[LCR]

So, if "unaligned" does not equal neutral, what does?
I rather liked characters, who strongly believed in justice and civilization, without being good (lawful neutral). It's sad they cut the whole lawful/chaotic axis while retaining the moral axis. If they were trying to simplify alignment, they should have gotten rid of the whole of it.
I would have no problem calling neutral unaligned, but they seem to be calling it "undecided" and "easy-going" (seriously ... what does not choosing between good and evil to do with being a nice guy?) and that's sort of weird, to be honest.

[Roderick_BR]

The struggle of good heroes against evil villains is one D&D’s core tenants.

QTW!!! I always thought that alignment is what makes D&D... D&D, and not some generic fantasy game.
It was needing an overhaul though, and it sounds like it's good now. People can be "neutral" without bothering with alignment. Apparently, you can have a whole game without alignment, that is what many players wanted, and still have options to play with them.

The way they took it is interesting, meshing the 2 axis into 5 basic roles. As it was commented before, Good is the old NG and CG, and Evil is the old NE and LE, leaving the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil as special cases. I like this variation. Less problems with the "chaotic/lawful" axis that is what people complain most.

My guess, based on the comment "being good makes you vulnerable to evil spells" means that by choosing an alignment, you get access to different abilities, but you have the option to use the unaligned in any game without problems.

Balance? You could play an unaligned character, that tends to nose into other's business. You are nor good nor evil, you are just in the middle.

[nagora]

So, if "unaligned" does not equal neutral, what does?

Neutrality is the alignment of self-preservation; True Neutral was a construct introduced to represent those who would preserve the balance of alignments - a political idea in essence.

A druid wishes to preserve the balance of nature (a broader version of the normal individual's neutrality) and the means to do this can be taken from any alignment: they may work in groups, or alone, for the aid of other sentients, or by force - whatever works in the circumstances. That's what I mean by "unaligned". They have no interest in artificial intellectual notions of balancing the alignment in the world at all.

[LCR]

I wasn't talking about the druidic neutral or neutral as in "trying to preserve balance", but neutral as in neither good nor evil or not concerned with good or evil/not interested in morals.

[Jarlax]

So, if "unaligned" does not equal neutral, what does?

nothing. neutrality has always bred action without justification, thats why NE PCs are more dangerous than CE or LE PCs, LE and CE are driven to evil by a cause or need. NE are evil for the sake of evil without justification for their actions.

I rather liked characters, who strongly believed in justice and civilization, without being good (lawful neutral). It's sad they cut the whole lawful/chaotic axis while retaining the moral axis.

the system is no so ridged that you cannot simply declare yourself "lawful" however the system is really just making the argument that since the system runs on the assumption that the PCs are the good guys if your lawful you should probably be good too. hence why it steps from good to lawful good

I would have no problem calling neutral unaligned, but they seem to be calling it "undecided" and "easy-going" (seriously ... what does not choosing between good and evil to do with being a nice guy?) and that's sort of weird, to be honest.

unaligned is really more about just being normal.

you follow the law when its is convenient. you pirate DVDs and music because there is no chance of being caught or because "everyone does it". but you rarely speed because the chance of being caught and the penalties for doing so are high.

you do good when it is easy, like you would donate money to a charity when collectors come, but wouldn't actively search for a donation line otherwise.

like the article says being unaligned is easy, choosing and standing for a cause is what is hard, because it means working toward an ideal in everything you do, every day.

[Tengu]

nothing. neutrality has always bred action without justification, thats why NE PCs are more dangerous than CE or LE PCs, LE and CE are driven to evil by a cause or need. NE are evil for the sake of evil without justification for their actions.

No. Just no. CE characters are rarely evil for the sake of some chaotic cause, and usually are because they don't care about others at all and just do what they want. NE means that if you want something and to obtain your goal you have to hurt someone, their loss. You've got these two alignments switched.

Which also shows how 4e alignment system is superior - alignments are much clearer now, no more arguments and debates. No more characters whose alignment is the only part of their personality, either.

[nagora]

nothing. neutrality has always bred action without justification, thats why NE PCs are more dangerous than CE or LE PCs, LE and CE are driven to evil by a cause or need. NE are evil for the sake of evil without justification for their actions.

You're making it too complicated. LE, NE, and CE all want to dominate others - that's the evil part. LE sees the best chance to do this by working with others of the same ilk; CE refuses to compromise with others and will only tolerate a group if s/he is in control of it; NE will work with others when it furthers their personal greed/sadism/whatever, and on their own when that gets them what they want quicker.

Causes can be followed by any alignment.

[KillianHawkeye]

Am I the only one who doesn't see any difference between the terms Neutral, True Neutral, and Unaligned? They're all the same thing as I understand it. Each one allows you to be indifferent, or into self-preservation, or promote a balance of alignments. Each one allows you to have Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic tendencies. Obviously there's going to be SOME variation with an alignment that comprises 99.9% of the population.

And FYI, True Neutral does not imply the "balance" version of neutrality. (At least not in 3.5.) It is simply an easier way of saying Neutral/Neutral. Just like True Good is Neutral Good, True Lawful is Lawful Neutral, etc.

[LCR]

I agree with your understanding of "unaligned" and that's pretty much what I don't like about it.
I just don't like how the new system is less nuanced than the old. You still have to decide which alignment you are, only that now, if you're not good nor evil, you're suddenly easy-going and normal.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you don't want to roleplay yourself as easy-going, I'd say that's pretty much your choice. But you're right that not choosing an alignment (i.e. "choosing" to be Neutral in older editions) does make you normal.

[nagora]

Am I the only one who doesn't see any difference between the terms Neutral, True Neutral, and Unaligned?

Yes

They're all the same thing as I understand it. Each one allows you to be indifferent, or into self-preservation, or promote a balance of alignments.

Those are three different things.

And FYI, True Neutral does not imply the "balance" version of neutrality. (At least not in 3.5.) It is simply an easier way of saying Neutral/Neutral. Just like True Good is Neutral Good, True Lawful is Lawful Neutral, etc.

Actually, TN got lost in 3ed. It does not appear in the alignments section of the SRD, at least. Traces appear from time to time.

[LCR]

Thinking of it, I would have preferred an even easier system. Good, Neutral, Evil.
Or no alignment system at all.
Or they could have just kept the old system.
But now, I feel like you're being gently forced (encouraged) to play the good guy (otherwise, you're evil or normal (boring)).

[Atanuero]

So, what they basically decided to do is say 'Chaotic and Neutral Good', despite being very different in the eyes of anyone managing to make the Wisdom check to understand the descriptions of them (NG is 'Things should be better for everybody, whether that leads to enlightened despotism (LG) or complete anarchy' and CG is 'I believe in the tenets of good so if I see babies being killed I'll probably go out of the way to stop it, but for the most part I look out for myself'), are really pretty much the same thing.

Likewise for Lawful Neutral ('Laws are a good thing, whatever form they may take') and True Neutral ('I don't really care/there needs to be balance') and Chaotic Neutral ('I'm incredibly self serving and I adventure for material gains without feeling very empathic towards anything really'), which are incredibly different but are now restricted to 'Unaligned'? Not even 'Lawful Unaligned'? Wow, that's a terrible change. Especially with the absence of Lawful Neutral. If somebody supports laws, you now need to instantly decide whether they're good or evil, which makes many leaders' alignments really ambiguous.

[LCR]

So, what they basically decided to do is say 'Chaotic and Neutral Good', despite being very different in the eyes of anyone managing to make the Wisdom check to understand the descriptions of them (NG is 'Things should be better for everybody, whether that leads to enlightened despotism (LG) or complete anarchy' and CG is 'I believe in the tenets of good so if I see babies being killed I'll probably go out of the way to stop it, but for the most part I look out for myself'), are really pretty much the same thing.

Likewise for Lawful Neutral ('Laws are a good thing, whatever form they may take') and True Neutral ('I don't really care/there needs to be balance') and Chaotic Neutral ('I'm incredibly self serving and I adventure for material gains without feeling very empathic towards anything really'), which are incredibly different but are now restricted to 'Unaligned'? Not even 'Lawful Unaligned'? Wow, that's a terrible change. Especially with the absence of Lawful Neutral. If somebody supports laws, you now need to instantly decide whether they're good or evil, which makes many leaders' alignments really ambiguous.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, only much better phrased. Thank you.

[KillianHawkeye]

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, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality.

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.

They seem about the same to me. The 4e version is more clearly written, and has the added concept of being "beyond morality", but that's not that big of a change.

Actually, TN got lost in 3ed. It does not appear in the alignments section of the SRD, at least. Traces appear from time to time.

Hmm, you are right, those lines were taken out of the 3.5 PHBs. It was in the 3e version, however, on all neutral alignments. For example:

The common phrase for neutral is "true neutral."

EDIT:

So, what they basically decided to do is say 'Chaotic and Neutral Good', despite being very different in the eyes of anyone managing to make the Wisdom check to understand the descriptions of them (NG is 'Things should be better for everybody, whether that leads to enlightened despotism (LG) or complete anarchy' and CG is 'I believe in the tenets of good so if I see babies being killed I'll probably go out of the way to stop it, but for the most part I look out for myself'), are really pretty much the same thing.

Likewise for Lawful Neutral ('Laws are a good thing, whatever form they may take') and True Neutral ('I don't really care/there needs to be balance') and Chaotic Neutral ('I'm incredibly self serving and I adventure for material gains without feeling very empathic towards anything really'), which are incredibly different but are now restricted to 'Unaligned'? Not even 'Lawful Unaligned'? Wow, that's a terrible change. Especially with the absence of Lawful Neutral. If somebody supports laws, you now need to instantly decide whether they're good or evil, which makes many leaders' alignments really ambiguous.

That's ridiculous. They are simply broadening the definitions. (The dumb part is using the same old names to represent the new definitions.) Anyway, you can certainly be support laws and be Unaligned. Wouldn't you say that most people support most laws IRL? And as previously noted, 99.9% of people are Neutral/Unaligned.

Also, I disagree with your view that CG is "for the most part I look out for myself, unless babies are in trouble". Selfishness is a more of a neutral attitude (see my sig) and is not implied by Chaos alone. Chaos/Evil maybe, but not Chaos/Good.

[Prophaniti]

I changed the fundamental rules of my campaigns long ago to make alignment less mechanically significant. My players usually still pick an alignment, to help describe where they stand morally. The main change I made is that mortal beings native to the material plane are unaffected by any alignment-based magic. Detect Evil and similar spells are limited to magical auras and outsiders. A good character entering an evil shrine will certainly feel disconcerted and disturbed, but they won't be mechanically limited by it. I did modify paladins a bit to make them less gimped by the change, but that was mostly just giving them the unrestricted version of Smite found on the Shadowbane Inquisitor.

Personally, I like the change. The 3e alignment system tried to codify too many different moral viewpoints and thus became restricting, with many an argument about whether an action was 'in keeping' with their alignment. I recall a very lengthy discussion about whether my Lawful Neutral Knight would enjoy a bar fight (just the rowdy fist-fight kind) or not. That's when I knew that alignment needed an overhaul.

[Dacia Brabant]

So, what they basically decided to do is say 'Chaotic and Neutral Good', despite being very different in the eyes of anyone managing to make the Wisdom check to understand the descriptions of them (NG is 'Things should be better for everybody, whether that leads to enlightened despotism (LG) or complete anarchy' and CG is 'I believe in the tenets of good so if I see babies being killed I'll probably go out of the way to stop it, but for the most part I look out for myself'), are really pretty much the same thing.

Likewise for Lawful Neutral ('Laws are a good thing, whatever form they may take') and True Neutral ('I don't really care/there needs to be balance') and Chaotic Neutral ('I'm incredibly self serving and I adventure for material gains without feeling very empathic towards anything really'), which are incredibly different but are now restricted to 'Unaligned'? Not even 'Lawful Unaligned'? Wow, that's a terrible change. Especially with the absence of Lawful Neutral. If somebody supports laws, you now need to instantly decide whether they're good or evil, which makes many leaders' alignments really ambiguous.

I was just about to write something about ethics and morals being unfairly merged in the new system, but this really says everything I wanted to say, so quoting for emphasis.

What are we players of the Judge archetype to do now? Do we have to be a Tyrant (Evil) or a Saint (Lawful Good) now instead? I can't see generic Unaligned fitting the role since they don't believe in an ethical mandate for society, and maybe not even for themselves.

The "choosing not to choose" line about philsophically Undecided is intriguing though and may fit the role, but I would have to see more about it if it allows for ethical choices.

you can certainly be support laws and be Unaligned. Wouldn't you say that most people support most laws IRL? And as previously noted, 99.9% of people are Neutral/Unaligned.

Yes that's true, however for that large swath of neutral/unaligned people who follow the laws, they do it because it's in their interest to do so, not because they regard Law as the sine qua non of existence. Surely there's a difference between the regular folk who follow most laws most of the time and the few who make Law and believe in it implicitly. I guess what I'm getting at is, is that difference something that's just going to have to be roleplayed as a different sort of Unaligned?

[nagora]

(NG is 'Things should be better for everybody, whether that leads to enlightened despotism (LG) or complete anarchy' and CG is 'I believe in the tenets of good so if I see babies being killed I'll probably go out of the way to stop it, but for the most part I look out for myself')

Likewise for Lawful Neutral ('Laws are a good thing, whatever form they may take') and True Neutral ('I don't really care/there needs to be balance') and Chaotic Neutral ('I'm incredibly self serving and I adventure for material gains without feeling very empathic towards anything really'), which are incredibly different but are now restricted to 'Unaligned'? Not even 'Lawful Unaligned'? Wow, that's a terrible change. Especially with the absence of Lawful Neutral. If somebody supports laws, you now need to instantly decide whether they're good or evil, which makes many leaders' alignments really ambiguous.

It always amazes me how people get alignments so out of whack like that. From 1ed right through to d20 SRD they're pretty well laid out (1ed was best, of course ).

Lawful characters work with others. They may work together to overthrow the law of the land. Paladins may do likewise if the king is a tyrant. Lawful is not about the law generally (although it can be for some individuals), it is about the code of the group and people who like to work in groups are lawful, simple as that.

Chaotic is not about selfishness as such, it's just about not compromising with others (so not great in groups); a chaotic person can be kind and generous, even willing to sacrifice him/herself for the sake of others.

Neutral (as regards Good/Evil) is "selfish" in that it's about looking after yourself.

Good is about helping others, and evil is about dominating others. Again, not really advanced theology there, is it?

The lawful/chaotic axis that so many people get screwed up about is a strange one given that we see it portrayed all the time. From "Starsky and Hutch" to "Life on Mars", the "Maverick cop who cuts corners to get the bad guys teamed up with the By-The-Book cop who knows that a firm conviction comes from doing things right" has been a staple of television shows for decades. Why do people still find it so hard to grasp the difference between LG and CG, I wonder?

[KillianHawkeye]

I recall a very lengthy discussion about whether my Lawful Neutral Knight would enjoy a bar fight (just the rowdy fist-fight kind) or not. That's when I knew that alignment needed an overhaul.

I vaguely remember reading that discussion. I seriously hope it ended by everybody realizing that what a character enjoys is not determined by alignment. Since that is the only sensible answer.

It always amazes me how people get alignments so out of whack like that. From 1ed right through to d20 SRD they're pretty well laid out (1ed was best, of course ).

Lawful characters work with others. They may work together to overthrow the law of the land. Paladins may do likewise if the king is a tyrant. Lawful is not about the law generally (although it can be for some individuals), it is about the code of the group and people who like to work in groups are lawful, simple as that.

Chaotic is not about selfishness as such, it's just about not compromising with others (so not great in groups); a chaotic person can be kind and generous, even willing to sacrifice him/herself for the sake of others.

Neutral (as regards Good/Evil) is "selfish" in that it's about looking after yourself.

Good is about helping others, and evil is about dominating others. Again, not really advanced theology there, is it?

The lawful/chaotic axis that so many people get screwed up about is a strange one given that we see it portrayed all the time. From "Starsky and Hutch" to "Life on Mars", the "Maverick cop who cuts corners to get the bad guys teamed up with the By-The-Book cop who knows that a firm conviction comes from doing things right" has been a staple of television shows for decades. Why do people still find it so hard to grasp the difference between LG and CG, I wonder?

QFT. It's not as though they made 4 Lethal Weapon movies. Oh wait, they did.