Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 4822475" data-attributes="member: 53980">The following is my comparison to 4e, based on your analysis.1) Being good still offers no mechanical advantage over being evil.&nbsp; (Same)2) (Same)3) Last I checked, there was nothing in 4E to prevent people from getting xp for killing &quot;good guys&quot;.&nbsp; The only significant difference is that you don't get the piddly 1xp for each orphan you slaughtered, since that orphan probably isn't considered an &quot;xp-worthy&quot; challenge under the 4e system.&nbsp; The only difference is a minor, gamist one.&nbsp; (Effectively, same)4) Fair enough, quests are new (or rather, an old house rule made official).&nbsp; Nonetheless, players are encouraged to create their own quests (DMG pg 103).&nbsp; An evil PC, insulted by the insignificant payment the townsfolk offered him, might make a quest out of destroying the village.&nbsp; Whether he gets xp for the townsfolk themselves depends on how tough they are relative to him.&nbsp; Nonetheless, I doubt you will argue that player-driven quests are anti-S&amp;S.&nbsp; (Genre neutral, depending on the quests themselves and how they are motivated)5) Gods are still super-powerful monsters.&nbsp; (Same)6) 1e didn't have to be politically correct.&nbsp; Back when the game was first created, there was no bad publicity about it being &quot;the devil's game&quot;.&nbsp; The world (and it's perception of D&amp;D) is different from when the game was first created.&nbsp; WotC is just covering it's own behind (see, the kids playing this game are heroes, so it isn't a bad influence on them at all).&nbsp; There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from playing evil characters.&nbsp; With the removal of alignment restrictions, it's actually easier to be evil now than it was then, since I don't have to choose between playing a Paladin OR being evil.&nbsp; You can even play a Warlock who draws his power directly from the Abyss.&nbsp; (On the surface looks different, but look any deeper and you realize that not only is this the same, being evil just got easier)7) Not in the game, I suspect for the same reasons as 6.&nbsp; (Here's an actual difference, but I don't think you can argue that this is a deal breaker on it's own; certainly not all S&amp;S characters summoned demons- most knew better)8) This is just a viewpoint.&nbsp; What you call &quot;random and unbalanced&quot; I call a lack of guidelines.&nbsp; I don't recall an elder dragon flying across Conan's path and eating him the first day he entered the wide open world.&nbsp; (I fail to grasp how random and unbalanced equates to S&amp;S; IMO, this point is irrelevant)9) Now you can be an evil ranger or evil paladin.&nbsp; (Even better than the original)According to your analysis, what makes 1e S&amp;S in your eyes seems to apply to 4e as well.&nbsp; Note, I don't actually think 4e is a S&amp;S game any more than I believe that any edition of D&amp;D was hardcore S&amp;S.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 4822475, member: 53980"] The following is my comparison to 4e, based on your analysis. 1) Being good still offers no mechanical advantage over being evil. (Same) 2) (Same) 3) Last I checked, there was nothing in 4E to prevent people from getting xp for killing "good guys". The only significant difference is that you don't get the piddly 1xp for each orphan you slaughtered, since that orphan probably isn't considered an "xp-worthy" challenge under the 4e system. The only difference is a minor, gamist one. (Effectively, same) 4) Fair enough, quests are new (or rather, an old house rule made official). Nonetheless, players are encouraged to create their own quests (DMG pg 103). An evil PC, insulted by the insignificant payment the townsfolk offered him, might make a quest out of destroying the village. Whether he gets xp for the townsfolk themselves depends on how tough they are relative to him. Nonetheless, I doubt you will argue that player-driven quests are anti-S&S. (Genre neutral, depending on the quests themselves and how they are motivated) 5) Gods are still super-powerful monsters. (Same) 6) 1e didn't have to be politically correct. Back when the game was first created, there was no bad publicity about it being "the devil's game". The world (and it's perception of D&D) is different from when the game was first created. WotC is just covering it's own behind (see, the kids playing this game are heroes, so it isn't a bad influence on them at all). There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from playing evil characters. With the removal of alignment restrictions, it's actually easier to be evil now than it was then, since I don't have to choose between playing a Paladin OR being evil. You can even play a Warlock who draws his power directly from the Abyss. (On the surface looks different, but look any deeper and you realize that not only is this the same, being evil just got easier) 7) Not in the game, I suspect for the same reasons as 6. (Here's an actual difference, but I don't think you can argue that this is a deal breaker on it's own; certainly not all S&S characters summoned demons- most knew better) 8) This is just a viewpoint. What you call "random and unbalanced" I call a lack of guidelines. I don't recall an elder dragon flying across Conan's path and eating him the first day he entered the wide open world. (I fail to grasp how random and unbalanced equates to S&S; IMO, this point is irrelevant) 9) Now you can be an evil ranger or evil paladin. (Even better than the original) According to your analysis, what makes 1e S&S in your eyes seems to apply to 4e as well. Note, I don't actually think 4e is a S&S game any more than I believe that any edition of D&D was hardcore S&S. [/QUOTE]

Verification