D&D 4E No evil gods in 4e?

[Thasmodious]

And this is exactly what so deeply offends me about this new system. Now we are no longer assuming that a good rebel or an evil dictator are Good or Evil, respectively. We are instead considering rebellion as a mitigating factor that negates Good, and we are considering discipline as a mitigating factor that negates Evil.

How did you make this leap? An evil dictator is still evil and a good rebel is still good. That hasn't changed. Maybe you've misunderstood the choices?

 

[Mouseferatu]

And this is exactly what so deeply offends me about this new system. Now we are no longer assuming that a good rebel or an evil dictator are Good or Evil, respectively. We are instead considering rebellion as a mitigating factor that negates Good, and we are considering discipline as a mitigating factor that negates Evil.

What? That's not what I was saying at all.

I was in no way, shape, or form implying that rebellion somehow "mitigates" good. I was saying that a character rebelling against an evil government may be doing so for good reasons or non-good reasons. But a good rebel is no less good than a good non-rebel. An evil dictator is no less evil than an evil non-dictator.

The fact is, almost any archetype can be portrayed by an unaligned character. That's what I was trying to get at--the fact that the examples under discussion could be approached from either an aligned or unaligned angle.

 

[Lackhand]

And this is exactly what so deeply offends me about this new system. Now we are no longer assuming that a good rebel or an evil dictator are Good or Evil, respectively. We are instead considering rebellion as a mitigating factor that negates Good, and we are considering discipline as a mitigating factor that negates Evil.

What bothers me is that a lot of kids growing up had D&D's early alignment system as a way of opening their world to the possibilities that there were multiple paths to being good or evil. It's not that the system some how will prevent you from playing a CG or LE character -- it's that it's biased which is so offensive.

I don't care whether it has mechanical effect or not. It's a political statement, and one that openly rejects the values I grew up with as believer in personal liberty over societal conformity.

But by that token, 4e:Good is 3e:Chaotic Good.
No, really -- the value you grew up with as a believer in personal liberty over societal conformity tells you that to be moral:good is to be moral:good regardless of societal pressure. Mazel Tov.
However, this definition of moral:good is clearly not the same alignment as that practiced by Paladins and other such gendarmes, who (in relation to the battle of moral:Good versus moral:Evil) are clearly still moral:good in some sense, and so demand a designation to mark that fact.

Nothing says that 4e:Lawful Good is any further from 3e:Neutral (4e:unaligned, or even 4e:Evil) than any other alignment, right?

Your reading is valid but reactionary, especially given that there are still multiple paths to Good -- two instead of three, but again, NG and CG do tend to blend.

 

[hong]

There's a difference between Death and Destroying the Universe. I haven't seen the PHB of course, so I don't know what kind of death god the Raven Queen is, but I would imagine her being more of a "Everything dies sooner or later, and when it does it's mine" type. The Primordials on the other hand want to destroy the universe, including whatever place dead souls go to - a clean slate.

Well, that makes the Raven Queen an exception to the rule, but I don't see a problem with that.

 

[The Dude]

GOOD

Neutral good, doesn't care either way weather a given action is lawful or not, as long as it's for the good of the people, he'll work within the system if he can, but has no qualms about working outside the system. Some people even considered this the "Vulcan" alignment, nto caring about law or chaos, simply using whatever method is most efficient to work for the overall good.

Chaotic good, to me, is more like an Eco terrorist. someone who is (or at least believes they are) doing good. but goes out of their way, to spit in the face of "the system" choosing a more straightforward, approach, and by causing disruption, damage, turmoil etc not only helps his cause, but hurts the Established Rule-makers in the process.

This isn't meant to pick on theeo123; what I quote above seems to parallel what a lot of folks are saying, but he says it pretty succinctly. The "neutral" as not caring about whether to be lawful or chaotic is chaotic. They have no intention of following the law; if their actions happen to be in accord with the law, it is only by coincidence because the character doesn't care. In fact, so-called "chaotic good" probably weren't breaking every law all of the time, so sometimes their actions happen to coincidentally follow the law as well!

The only real difference between so-called "neutral good" and so-called "chaotic good" is how often their actions break the law and how often the character actively tries to break the law (because its not all the time). So I am ok with dividing good characters into "those who just care about being good and don't really care about following the law (and whose actions will sometimes follow the law by conincidence)" and "those that care about being good and always following the law".

A "lawful good" character is a little different. Unlike the so-called "neutral goods" and "chaotic goods", these folks do care about following the law. Their obedience to the law is no mere coincidence, as with other good folks; it is intentional and believed to be necessary. Unlike the difference between good folks who don't care about following the law and good folks who don't care about following the law a lot, there is a distinct difference between those good folks who absolutely follow the law and those folks who do good and don't care about the law. I am ok with them getting their own label.

 

[The Dude]

EVIL

"Lawful Evil" is also flawed. People keep mentioned the Big Bad Evil Tyrant as the epitome of lawful evil. Two problems: 1) did the tyrant really become a tyrant without ever breaking the law? and 2) what about all the subordinate non-tyrants- why is there no definition of "lawful evil" that encompasses them? In a hereditary monarchy, it might be possible to become an evil tyrant without breaking the law, but unless they became a tyrant after building their power base, they probably would get knocked off by the not-so-lawful evils who stand to take over after the lawful evil tyrant's death (and leaving the "lawful evil" nontyrants to stand around wondering my they never get total power). Seems to me that the "lawful evil" tyrant is only lawful to the extent that the laws serve his purposes- which is all of them, if you are the tyrant.
You may be running "honorable" as a synonym for "lawful", but that doesn't really fit the definition either. A code of honor is a set of rules that govern the character's behavior. Well, even "dishonorable" characters have codes of conduct- those codes are simply less detailed or strict. Real life provides a great example- robbers, arsonists, and murderers all break the law without any real sense of "honor", but they won't cross the line to molesting children. The fact that they have a code of conduct that they won't break doesn't make them lawful; the fact that some characters may have a stricter code of conduct than most folks is just too vague a distinction to hang an alignment term on.

Now, an evil character might decide to (just about) always follow the law- but unless the laws have all kinds of evil-sized loopholes or exceptions, how would the character get to act evil? We don't really care about the guy who impotently wishes he got to be evil but never acts on it because those actions are illegal. Perhaps the society does have evil loopholes- but if so, isn't the "lawful evil" character being lawful only because he coincidentally happens to be in a society that lets him be evil? Would that character really follow all of the laws of a different non-evil society, even when no one was looking? Probably not.

Same goes for "neutral evil"- as with neutral good, this character doesn't care about following the law. However, the neutral evil character's actions will sometimes coincide with the law because it suits the character. So really, the only difference between "lawful evil" and "neutral evil" is how often the character's actions are going to coincide with the law. Neither will always follow the law, unless the laws allow them to be as evil as they want to be without breaking the law. But they are both evil.

Chaotic evil is another story. Chaotic good characters will sometimes follow the law because laws fostering community prosperity tend to also foster goodish behavior between folks and good characters (including chaotic good characters who don't like some laws or leaders) believe in the same behaviors. Chaotic evil characters have no such belief in such goodish behaviors or community prosperity. Without concern for the general "good" or the laws that require behavior that supports the general "good", these characters can be truely reckless, ruthless, and unpredictable. These are the characters that will do literally anything to get what they want- even cross lines that other evil characters won't typically cross. That is an easily determined distinction between them and other evil folks. I am ok with them gettting their own label.

 

[Lackhand]

stuff

You, sir, are a smart cookie.

 

[pemerton]

Chaotic good is classic liberalism, the belief that the only use for laws is to ensure personal freedoms.

A small problem: perhaps the greatest philosopher of classical liberalism is John Stuart Mill, who was a utilitarian. And (at least according to the 1st ed DMG) the utilitarian credo of maximising the good is a precept of Lawful Good, not Chaotic Good.

Security vs Freedom is an exciting concept, perfect to build civil wars around, for those of us who like to make campaigns that force people to think. 4th Edition will be the first D&D that doesn't help you write those stories. And that, I feel, is a shame.

First, Law vs Chaos is not obviously Security vs Freedom. At least, this is not how AD&D and 3E paint it: security is generally associated with the satisfaction of preferences, which is turn generally associated with Good, not Law. Law tends to be associated with some sort of notion of compliance with a code, either internal (honour) or external (government).

Second, OD&D and Basic/Rules Cyclopaedia D&D used a single alignment spectrum of Law/Neutrality/Chaos. So 4e is actually returning to something more like that.

Vhailor literally could not exist in the dumbed down new version of alignments.

<snip>

And if someone gravitates towards an extreme that the new alignment bar - because it's a bar now - doesn't allow?

That makes no sense - the game has always assumed that the entire range of conceivable personalities and motivations is part of the gameworld, and 4e is (as far as I can tell) no different. It's just that no longer is any attempt being made to shoehorn that range of motivations into a total system of alignment descriptions.

So a character who has extreme motivations or personality traits that are not best described as either G (or LG) or E (or CE) is obviously unaligned. This description does not ential that the character in question is uninteresting, or non-extreme, so I don't see that any information has been lost, nor that the character literally cannot exist.

the problem with 4e's alignment system: it has few choices for alignment and they are bad choices. This forces characters to be shoehorned into descriptions which do not fit them.

But if a character is neither Good (or extremely so) or Evil (or extremely so) then s/he is unaligned. The description fits. No shoehorning is taking place.

No, it's more straight-jacketed. That's what happens when you remove choices.

No choices have been removed as far as character personality and motivation are concerned. There's just no attempt to locate all such phenomena within a purportedly total descriptive system. Hence the removal of the straitjacket, by more narrowly defining the task of alignment description (which, by all appearances, is to locate characters on the hero-villain spectrum of heroic fantasy).

Then why bother keeping Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil?

Because LG identifies the purist/most honourable (who are distinctive figures in heroic fantasy) while CE identifies the most psychopathic and horrible (who are distinctive figures in heroic fantasy). Your LE tyrant is simply Evil. Your ruthless demon-worshipper is Chaotic Evil.

Not one person in this thread has defended the changes, all you've done is say "WELL SO WHAT, THE PREVIOOUS EDITION HAD FLAWS TOO[/b].

CAN you defend or promote 4e without constantly using "Well 3.x sucks!" as a crutch?

Tell me why the new alignment system is better then the old one.

I've given some reasons above. Another - which has been put by other posters as well, contrary to your suggestion that no on is defending the changes - is that it will reduce pointless alignment debates in which people who frequently have little training in moral philosophy or psychology are forced by a game they are playing in order to have fun to locate every conceivable range of personalities and motivations within a poorly thought out moral and ethical framework.

 

[Jack the Red]

Well, for me it sounds more like a morality gradation issue.

LG- Highly moral, would do good following a strict code of conduct.
G- Want to do good no matter what it takes.
E- Want to do evilness but don't want to brake with the moral code (in a tyrannical kind of way).
CE- Want to cause pain and destruction.

Un- "I mind my own business"

I rather have no alignment at all, but this works for me.

But I'm just a Philosophy student, you don't have to pay attention to me.

 

[FireLance]

But I'm just a Philosophy student, you don't have to pay attention to me.

Well, nobody pays attention to the economists during the discussions on trade in a POL setting and the buying and selling of magic items, so why should this be any different?