It's all about me, me, me!

Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)

You need to look at the bigger picture though - the framework of GR is loyalist = bad, Resistance = good - which is reflected in the new I19 TFs, for example - the meta-story is the Praetorian dictatorship vs Primal Earth, but the micro-stories within it can have shades of gray - so while Tyrant is the meta-story supervillain, a micro-story where you do something morally wrong in the fight against him - like in a lot of the Crusader arcs - is still the wrong thing to do - you're using evil to fight evil, so you're not a hero.

The major reference point for morality in the game is Paragon City - the "City of Heroes" - it's always the good side, and anyone or anything that attacks or threatens it are always the bad side.

So while Crusaders can try and blow up a hospital in an attempt to bring down the evil dictatorship in Praetoria, and Arachnos can fight within itself and against other villain factions, any fight in Paragon City is good vs bad.
The new Tip missions with Longbow are a good example - Longbow is a heroic organization, but when any of their members cross the line and become vigilantes, it's up to Heroes to step in and stop them - for those missions, Longbow becomes "bad", because they're doing the wrong thing, and so they become the enemies of Heroes in those missions.

He also tries to maintain a code of "rules" over his minions and tries to pass himself off as the "government" of the Rogue Isles. This why I didn't peg him squarely as Chaotic Evil the way say The Joker might be labeled.

In any event I think it's pretty clear both Emperor Cole and Lord Recluse were meant to be cast as the opposite ends of what "Evil" would do if they respectively ran an empire so I'm not too against keeping it super simple and agreeing with you to some degree. *shrugs*

Actually, I could not disagree more. Specifically, the characterization of all Villains as Chaotic Evil smacks of applying a shoe-horn to find a place to list the last two alignments of the CoH/V and D&D categories not already mentioned.

All villains do not fit cleanly in the Chaotic Evil alignment. If Rogue covers Neutral Evil (and I think that's an overly restrictive of Rogue, too), I believe there is plenty of room for Villains to be Lawful Evil. There are plenty of examples villains who espouse strong loyalty to order and tradition while heartlessly striking down innocents to enforce order and tradition through fear and oppression. Edit: Just because Recluse might fit Chaotic Evil, it is not reasonable to cast all villain motivations based on his image.

On the matter of Rogues, while I do think that Neutral Evil does fit Rogues, I also feel that Chaotic Neutral and even (True) Neutral fit. Just because you're breaking the law, and even if you're willing to break your word, it doesn't mean you're willing to harm innocents. In fact, the Rogue Morality mission has you risk absolutely overwhelming punishment (attacking an Aribiter is usually like ordering a death sentence with a side of torture) to spare the lives of innocent bystanders, when you could just take the job and be paid.

Edit 2: As I think about it, the same thing applies to heroes. All heroes are not Lawful Good. Basically I think this effort at alignment categorization ran aground when it tried to keep Primal and Praetorean "alignments" distinct. They aren't, and so there should be overlap.

Another difference between Tyrant and Recluse is their threat level to Paragon City - John "Protean" Hegner, one of the lead writers on GR says Tyrant is "Praetoria Earth's greatest villain" - but could Recluse really be called "Primal Earth's greatest villain" when people like Nemesis and Reichsman are also running around there?

While I think it's fair to label the "leading" NPCs with D&D style alignments (i.e. Statesman is Lawful Good and Emperor Cole is Lawful Evil) I don't think it really makes sense to try to pigeon-hole the "rank-n-file" with the same exact labels. Obviously there are examples of all kinds of "goods and evils" spread across the game. I don't even really think it makes sense to try to peg the sub-groupings like 'all' Villains or 'all' Crusaders the same either.

He's not as clearly Chaotic as the Joker, but the Joker isn't in charge, either. Recluse's rules, in reality, boil down to "don't get caught, and if you do get caught, make sure your plan was audacious enough to be worth the risk." Every single Patron arc involves the Patron betraying Recluse, the Arbiters, or the other Patrons in some way, and none of them end with a disgraced or destroyed PC or Patron, because Recluse still admired the initiative and audacity involved.

Like any Chaotic ruler, Recluse expects to face uprisings from his underlings from time to time, and doesn't hold a grudge when he slaps them down and proves he's still the strongest. Being Chaotic doesn't mean you can't be in charge (just like being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't have friends.)

Although I don't think Recluse has any friends

Again just exactly where Recluse fits on the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum can certainly be debated. But I think it's more important to agree Recluse is much more Chaotic than Emperor Cole is. At least I think we agree on that much.

I agree. I wrote up my thoughts on this a while back (linky). But basically my view is that each of the 8 CoX alignments really represents a collection of D&D alignments (with lots of overlap).

The Primal Earth alignments are the bars of the chart:
Hero = Good
Vigilante & Rogue = Neutral
Villain = Evil

While the Praetorian Earth alignments represent the corners of the chart:
Responsibility: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral
Wardens: Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral
Power: Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral
Crusaders: Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral

Well, no, but that's because the man has the charisma of a cockroach (and just about the same amount of brains, for that matter.)

Directly to the part I bolded: With what I've seen Longbow do, I'd have to disagree. Strongly.

I also mentioned how Longbow can become vigilantes for some missions - which makes them the enemies of heroes during those missions

I'd agree with the general idea of this even though like I said before it's kind of hard to peg entire classes of people under set alignments. While I can accept your "alignment corners" idea you somehow managed to mix all the Praetorians up. This is what they actually are given the flavor of their respective arcs:

Wardens: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral
Crusaders: Chaotic Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral
Responsibility: Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral
Power: Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, True Neutral

You've got to realize Emperor Cole is the main "bad guy" here.
Things like "power" and "responsibility" are being used in service of his inherently totalitarian regime.

No doubt. I just did a mission last night where Longbow was going to murder a criminal so I had to save him. (Hero Morality mission with Doc Quantum)

Exactly - Longbow are heroic, until they become vigilantes - then Heroes have to stop them and get them to behave properly again

You have a good point. Not all Villains can be chaotic and of Rogues like all they are a lot of types. Not all Vigilantes/Anti-Heroes are the same too. It is obvious there are a lot of types of every faction and he was just trying to put it in the simple way which it was good depending on the person but we all have our own opinions.

In the Rogue morality mission which is my favorite along the Vigilante one, i think our characters act more as pure Neutral almost going to Good than Neutral evil. Han Solo is a perfect example of redemption and you can see other bounty hunters/assassins that can fit into neutral evil and others more into neutral and neutral good. Another example for me Poison Ivy was never a Villain, i put her more into the neutral type, others will disagreed with me.

What i like of Praetoria is the control we can have over the storyline and the choosing sides fits into different categories, contrary as for City of Villains which a lot of us wanted Matthew Burke to be our first contact to be the Mercenary/Rogue/Bounty Hunter type but now that is possible for us. This thread is more than interesting and i hope to see more different opinions about this.

It depends how you view the axis. My view is:
Lawful-Chaotic -> Do they support the system or oppose it?
Good-Evil -> Are they doing it for themselves or to help others?

Your view is basically the other way around:
Lawful-Chaotic -> Are they doing it for themselves or to help others?
Good-Evil -> Do they support Cole (aka: the system) or oppose him?

I consider the first method to be much closer to the spirit of the D&D alignment than the second. Compare a Chaotic Good character to a Lawful Good character. They both want to help people, they just differ as to how they should do it and what the goal is. The Lawful Good character will attempt to work with the system to reform it if necessary and will generally value safety and security, breaking the system invites anarchy and should only be done as a last resort. Conversely the Chaotic Good character will value freedom (both of action and thought/speech) and believe that people should, as much as possible, be free to choose their own course and will prefer to smash the system in order to free people. To me that sounds a lot more like the difference between Wardens and Responsibility than Wardens and Crusaders.

Cole is evil, no argument there but not everyone who works for him is evil. The Responsibility faction is trying to do right by the people of Preatoria but are doing so within the system (either because they believe that breaking it will be worse than the alternative or because despite everything else Cole was legally appointed).

Conversely the Resistance is not automatically good. The Cursaders don't really care about killing people which is not the actions of a good person (even a Chaotic Good person). Consider the end of the Resistance arc. When you're getting ready to go through the portal Steven mentions that the portal to the Rogue Isles is mostly being used by the Crusader types. Sure some Crusaders choose to become heroes (and some Wardens become villains) but the point being made in the story is that the Crusaders as a groups feel a stronger connection to the ideology of the Isles than they do Paragon City.

EDIT: To butcher a famous quote by Churchill (which I'm not quoting directly for obvious reasons): "If Cole invaded the Rogue Isles, I would make at least a favourable reference to Lord Recluse in the House of Commons." Cole is evil, but not all who oppose him are good.

That's just patently false... Lawful/Chaotic is your stance on tradition/law/keeping promises while Good/Evil is your altruism.

A Lawful Good Knight could protect a Lawful Evil Red Wizard of Thay, for example, because he is bound by oaths and rules and Laws. He'd still be Lawful Good so long as he didn't perform any Chaotic or Evil acts.

And that's the Key. While an organization can be one alignment, it's adherents can be other alignments. A Lawful Good heroic character can follow the Responsible Loyalist path, even though his actions don't bring down the leader of the organization immediately, he's still fighting against criminals and murderers. Bound by Law and Rules and Oaths to keep society functioning.

A Lawful Good character can also join the Wardens. Helping people and holding to their own code of laws. Being honest and keeping promises.

Ultimately any member of any alignment can join any group of any alignment so long as the group's goals or structure allow that alignment. There are some extreme cases where this doesn't apply (The Baby-Slaughterer's guild of Evil wouldn't want a LG member and no LG character would want to join) but for the most part that maxim holds true. This exception is shown in the Crusaders, since no "Good" and Altruistic person would intentionally reprogram robots to kill innocent civilians.

When applied to such far-reaching groups as Governments any alignment can be represented. The Lawful Good Guard, the Chaotic Evil Vizier, the Lawful Neutral King, and the True Neutral Bureaucrat can all be members of the same government and support it for their own individual reasons (national pride, protection of the innocent, personal power, sense of duty).

Judging the individual based on the actions of the organization is folly. Otherwise Winston Churchill (one of the few members of the British Government railing against Hitler-controlled Germany before WW2) is just as guilty and wrong as the rest of the government when they gave Hitler the green light to invade Sudentenland.

Group Alignments are fine, but they do not dictate or indicate individual character motivations and alignment.

-Rachel-

Fixed for Praetorian reality

A loyalist is the same as a member of Arachnos.

What do you consider to be Evil, Golden Cole?

Slavery, Oppression, Murder, Theft, Cruelty... Different members of the government certainly do those things! Of course "Oppression" is pretty much subjective, since some people find the basic rules of a polite society to be oppressive.

They also educate, protect, provide for, and present health care for their people. Jobs are plentiful, but the degrading or menial tasks are performed by automata. Food and drinkable water are provided, clean streets and roads, housing... The list goes on and on and on.

And while individuals might experience the Cruelty or Oppression or Murder or Slavery, most live in a place where all of their needs are provided for them and they're safe. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, don't they? Maybe if the "Few" would stop breaking the laws of the land there wouldn't be any Slavery, Oppression, Cruelty, or Murder...

-Rachel-

*Edit!* It should also be noted that a Member of Arachnos can be a good and upstanding Lawful individual, though the game's writing is -incredibly- limited (as it has to be!) but a little personal re-writing of missions to coincide with your character's goals and voila! You're still accomplishing the same ends, more or less, but doing it for the right reason for your character.

Of course, if you follow the game's text to the T all villains are nothing but henchmen hired on by Recluse, and every level 50 villain who completes the "Recluse" arc is one of Recluse's Lieutenants, so some hand-waving is automatically called for.

I agree, and I apologize if I gave the impression I thought you didn't know what you were talking about. The D&D alignment system is based on the idea of a objective good and evil. This doesn't really apply in the real world (or in City of Heroes) where the same action can be good or evil depending on why you do it.

My problem with this is that it's basing Good versus Evil on a single issue: do they oppose Cole. Lord Recluse, for example, opposes Cole because Cole represents a threat to his power base, that doesn't make Recluse a good guy. Opposing Tyranny is all well and good but if you're slaughtering civilians in job lots (by say, reprogramming robots to attack them) are you really better than Cole?

I think Steampunkette said it very well, opposing Cole is not the actions of a "good" person it's the actions of a "chaotic" person. You're going outside the law to accomplish what you consider to be "right".

Someone needs to tell Vanguard and the heroes of Primal Earth that

And the Responsibility Loyalists are enslaving and killing innocent civilians. And propping up a madman. And engaging in extrajudicial executions. And torture. And abetting genocide.

Nice people for sure!