MM II Identity Parade

[Rechan]

I am starting to wonder why they kept alignment around. I mean, if you never actually meet anything that's good, and no PC can ever be evil, then certainly it's only "us" and "everyone else." We shoot blue lazers, they shoot red, let's fight!

Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.

 

[Hellzon]

Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

 

[Dice4Hire]

Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.

How much alignment stuff really still exists? I know clerics must be similar in alignment to their diety, but I can recall few if any powers of magic items that trigger off alignment. Type, yes, there are a lot, but alignment?

 

[avin]

Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.

I'd rather do that than this GOOOOOOOOD vs evil thingie. I feel dishearted by people saying "you can just change them back, from unaligned to good" when changing from good to unaligned and keeping evil around sounds like every D&D game should be "zealots versus evil dudes and we are done."

But I'm going back to the "I want monster more mechanic" vs "I want more fluff monsters" and this edition fluff, on monster manuals, has lost.

 

[Rechan]

How much alignment stuff really still exists? I know clerics must be similar in alignment to their diety, but I can recall few if any powers of magic items that trigger off alignment. Type, yes, there are a lot, but alignment?

My point is that it's still there. It's a vestigial thing, but it's still there for those that want it.

 

[Dice4Hire]

"zealots versus evil dudes and we are done."

While I do not go that far, it is my basic playstyle, the good vs everyone who is not good. I do not run evil games, and I do not play in them. It is just not my preference. I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.

 

[Jhaelen]

Because if they had nuked alignment, the outrage would have been mighty.

From whom? I don't see it.

 

[jdcash]

While I do not go that far, it is my basic playstyle, the good vs everyone who is not good. I do not run evil games, and I do not play in them. It is just not my preference. I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.

This!

 

[Aeolius]

I am glad 4E does not support, and actively discourages evil characters.

That is a DM's prerogative, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with a particular edition of D&D.

D&D has always been a game where players assume the roles of heroes. There are always the reverse dungeon one-shots, of course, but I've been playing D&D since Basic (before 1e) and have never felt that a particular edition encouraged the use of evil PCs.

While 3.5e encouraged the creation of "weird" PCs, it was not exclusive to that edition.

If weird = evil, then I'm afraid we'd all be in prison by now.

 

[Harlekin]

Besides, why must every creature think and behave like a human? (Unless the creature is completely evil and can be killed on sight. Thats also perfectly acceptable. But having something inherently nice and compassionate? Thats a big no).

Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.