|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 12:18AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2007
|
I must admit, the loss of CG and LE raised my eyebrows. Cutting down player options like that is just a strange move. My guess is they must have redefined "law" and "chaos" in some major way; I await the release of the books to see.
Indeed.
I think they've thrown out Law and Chaos except as fancy words for "very." I honestly dislike it intensely.
Unless (hopefully) they are finally making a clear distinction and definition based on an order/meaning vrs random/meaningless axis; which would explain the demons now being connected to primal chaos and raw destruction of the Elemental Tempest.
My guess is diametrically opposed, actually. I suspect LG and CE mean exactly what they always have, but the designers are going back to the 1e/2e value judgment that LG/CE are uniquely heroic/vile and hence worthy of a special calling-out. Something along these lines, maybe:
"True heroes are never chaotic -- they don't make a habit of promising things they can't/won't deliver, nor do true heroes believe that the end justifies the means. But there is a special class of hero who always keeps his word and never takes the expedient route in his pursuit of Goodness. Such men form the core of Lawful Goodness, the alignment from which most paladins are drawn."
Am kind of guessing that too...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 12:42AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2006
|
Mind you, I'm not all that excited about the changes either (although I will be excited by the fact that they seem to be separating alignment out from the mechanical aspect of the game) but I do have an alternative theory to propose beyond the "dumbing down" argument (which is also highly plausible):
Maybe they removed LE on the assumption that many who work from "within the system" to do evil don't really think of themselves as evil. Bothering to "work from within the system" means you might have started off with "good" intentions but got sidetracked. The differentiation between E and CE might therefore be intended to illustrate the difference between "self-deluded" evil and plain 'ol nihilistic "full speed ahead" evil.
Dunno, still seems a bit clumsy though.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 12:47AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2007
|
This division seems...odd.
I wait to see the preview & later the full rules.
For a fantasy setting I understand keeping alignment simple is best - I'd have probably gone for a sliding scale between Good and Evil. Not realistic - but hey, what game system can possibly account for realistic ethics. For a fantasy game Good/Evil seems about right.
Don't get the chaos/law thing.
Playing Scales of War 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 9:21AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2005
|
Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has been Godwin'd.
Yes, but in a discussion of what is evil bringing up Hitler is acceptable.
You find a more iconic representative of Lawful Evil.[/quote]
I can't think of a better modern example that everyone is familiar with.
Back to the OP, I don't think lawful and chaotic are appropriate descriptions for good and evil. It should be good, unaligned and evil.
If you want to show shades of grey then use adjectives such as slightly, really and unbelievably. You could use "WTF?" as an alignment for truly chaotic characters. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 9:37AM
#35
|
|
|
Maybe they removed LE on the assumption that many who work from "within the system" to do evil don't really think of themselves as evil. Bothering to "work from within the system" means you might have started off with "good" intentions but got sidetracked.
Not necessarily -- there are plenty of "full speed ahead" Lawful Evil creatures in D&D. Illlithids, Neogi, Hobgoblins, etc. These creatures are tyrannical without any pretension that they are doing it for "noble" reasons -- they are just very fond of Order over Mercy. It's clumsy, as you say.
I really can't think of any explanation for the decision that doesn't simply reveal a certain philosophical / political bias towards obedience to the law over respect of people's right and boundaries. It's a removal of a moral nuance that has provoked a lot of thought in teenagers first starting to game over the decades, and I think it's a shame to see it go.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 9:56AM
#36
|
|
|
If they are killing two of the pillars of the alignment system, as well as dumbing down, it would really just be more ideal to simplify it to good and evil, and leave law and chaos as ingame concerns. But then, I realise as I'm writing it, that sucks also. The new setting seems to be more geared towards order and chaos than good and evil in any event. So if they are redefining chaos from freedom to chaos and entropy, they should follow suit to redefine law from honourable and legalistic to extreme order, and then just leave the nine alignments in place. It seems to be that in moving away from the senseless and annoyingly ever-present symmetry of the Great Wheel, we now have something which is just simple and (for me) dissatisfying.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 10:06AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2007
|
Hrmm. I have an idea here. People seem to be assuming that Lawful Good at Chaotic Evil are the extreme alignments. As if it were a spectrum, ranging LG - G - U - E - CE. But perhaps this is not the case.
Perhaps Good, and Evil, are the pure variants. The extreme edges. A person who is purely good will do what is right. In the case where what is right isn't what is legal, they will still do what is right (assuming they're good enough to actually warrant the alignment. Most folks are Neutral at best). And a person who is Evil will do what serves them best. They're not in it to cause trouble for trouble's sake, and often don't want to bring trouble on their own heads. So are more likely to work within, and exploit, a system, then rebel against it.
I think Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil, are the oddities, in fact. The sidesteps from normal alignments. A lawful good person still tries to do what is right...But they're sometimes willing to sacrifice what is right for what is orderly. What's easy. Chaotic Evil, likewise, doesn't much care about anything but causing chaos and torment and pain. There's little care for logic or purpose, however twisted. They just like causing trouble.
Neutral Good, was a pretty unnecessary alignment. Most people do wish well on others, and are generally simple, good people. But that's Neutral. Good as an alignment is more than that. Good is a desire to do what is right because it's right, and to push for that ideal. Not just in little ways, but in big, personality defining ways. And, imo, a person that entrenched with a desire to do Good is going to do what is right, heedless of unfair laws. This making the Chaotic Good designation unnecessary. Order, if not to the degree that it limits freedom, is a good thing. Lawful good isn't Super good. It's good, limited by a deference to order. There will be many shades between those two, but there's still an acknowledgement that they feel a certain degree of loss of freedoms or liberties is acceptable for more order, something which Good does not.
Similarly, Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are close in terms of nature. Evil people are selfish, self-serving, and dont' care about the pain or troubles of others, or that they cause to others. But evil isn't stupid. Evil doesn't want to cause trouble for itself. Working within a system, creating systematic oppression and legal loopholes ripe for exploitation is as evil as it gets. Someone who was Neutral Evil isn't going to be bringing trouble on themselves. They'll be charging unfair taxes, bleeding people dry. Executing people for unjust, but still legal, laws. If they're just a jerk, that's still in the realm of Neutral, of Unaligned. It's Chaotic people who are the exception. They're chaos, destruction, wanton bloodshed for no purpose beyond itself. I'ts not a rebelling against order. It's complete disregard for order. It's hatred and violence, untempered by personal motives.
Edit: quick summary. Basically, there's likely not enough of a real difference between Neutral good and Chaotic Good, and between Neutral Evil, and Lawful Evil, to warrant specific alignments, especially considering that being aligned is supposed to be a more significant designation in 4e. It doesn't mean there aren't good freedom fighters or oppressive empires. Just that these attitudes fall quite neatly with the standard Good, or Evil designations. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are the flavors of good and evil that act differently.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 10:18AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Zarius, wow! Very interesting interpretation. That would make the new system seem more palatable and less biased.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 10:27AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
A lawful good person still tries to do what is right...But they're sometimes willing to sacrifice what is right for what is orderly. What's easy.
Wow! an interpretation for LG that I can agree with. Up to this point LG has always been played as LE with the delusion of being good (e.g. an inquisitor).
I've always seen law as more conformity to an extrinsic moral code, vs chaos which is the freedom to follow an intrinsic moral code.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 18, 2008 - 10:30AM
#40
|
|
|
Just to pitch out some thoughts here:
Chaotic/Neutral Good haven't been left out - they're part of Good. People with Good alignments seek to oppose evil, protect the lives and dignity of their fellow sentient beings, feel compassion and empathy, and so on and so forth. Now, previously, a Neutral Good person sought to do this, was willing to work within the system, but didn't feel beholden to this (interestingly, this was also referred to in 3.5 as "True Good." A Chaotic Good person believed exactly what the Neutral Good person did, except that they were more willing to work without the system and believed even more that one's own moral sense was more important than the laws of society. Now, both would be considered parts of the same moral spectrum of good, united by a common belief that one's own moral code trumps allegiance to authority.
Same thing happens on the Evil side of the ledgers. Both Neutral and Lawful Evil types were willing to work within the system to get what they wanted, one more so than the other. Maybe one Evil person is committed to tradition and authority, and the other twists them to their own advantage, but ultimately they're both evil.
Now, what makes Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil different is their allegiance to a different conception of Good and Evil. To a Lawful Good person, the rule of law, the belief in organic society, the idea of civilization itself, is the embodiment of Good. Without law and society, the Lawful Good person believes, life is nasty, brutish, and short, the baser instincts of man are unleashed, and evil reigns supreme. The Lawful Good person seeks to reconcile his competing commitments with a belief in the Spirit of the Law. It's a harder road to follow, because it commits the Lawful Good person to struggle through to find solutions to their moral dilemmas, whereas the plain Good person finds the straightest path and takes it.
Likewise, I would think that a Chaotic Evil person believes that ANY restriction on the self is a barrier to one's own personal advancement, even something as basic as a warrior code or a willingness to work within the system. Gratification of every dark impulse is the highest moral calling and must be followed through at all times. Any holding back, any commitment to authority (even one's own authority, as power can itself become a cage), any acknowledgment of the existence of outside restraints, is backsliding, the lingering traces of your internalization of the rules that society imposes upon you, and your own fear that society is stronger than yourself. Again, this takes a special kind of commitment to Evil - you really have to believe so strongly in yourself than you can overcome every effect of socialization.
|
|
|
