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

[FireLance]

I'm saying that the character does not fit in the alignment system as the current changes exist now. Vhailor literally could not exist in the dumbed down new version of alignments.

Seriously, this new alignment system just seems to underscore the idea that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

You don't start by saying "I want to play a [insert alignment] character. How would he act?" You start by asking, "How does the character act?" and then select an alignment.

In 4e, if a character isn't Good or Evil, he's simply unaligned. Extreme Law or Chaos just doesn't make a difference. It doesn't mean that a character cannot act as Lawful or as Chaotic as he wants. It just isn't going to show up in the alignment entry.

I'm not sure of the distinction between Good/Lawful Good and Evil/Chaotic Evil, but the same issue applies. Is a Good character Lawful Good? If not, he's just Good.

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. Hell, I shoulud just copy that sentence and paste it on every reply I make.

One advantage I can think of is that the PCs can't use alignment as a predictor of behavior, except maybe for the extreme LG and CE alignments, and will have to rely on skills such as Insight to determine whether the Evil-aligned devil really is trustworthy.

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

Note it as a character trait. It's in a different place and you've lost the convenient shorthand, but all the information is still there.

 

[Lackhand]

One advantage I can think of is that the PCs can't use alignment as a predictor of behavior, except maybe for the extreme LG and CE alignments, and will have to rely on skills such as Insight to determine whether the Evil-aligned devil really is trustworthy.

Muffin_of_chaos' point -- that the new scale is way better for per-action rather than overall-mental-justification measuring -- is probably apt here.

So, too, is that this cuts down on a lot of alignment debate (I take this as a good in-and-of-itself, though of course you're free to disagree) -- I believe we have a fundamentally easier time sorting Good from Evil behavior (even when it's complex, it's a lot easier to use common terms and come to a coherent argument with respect to this axis, while the Law versus Chaos axis inevitably descends into turmoil about definitions-- perhaps due to several thousand years of accumulated philosophical thought on one of the two dimensions?).

Similarly, if you don't care very much about alignment, easier is better. It is more satisfying to have an epic struggle of Good versus Evil, and this system seems to fundamentally be precisely that, with an additional focus on the alignments of demons and of paladins (which is part of a pretty common trope in both D&D and fantasy roleplaying; while it's somewhat arbitrary, it's also not ridiculous or harmful to retain).

Yes, CG and LE are gone. But as Khur said upthread (in one of these threads, anyway!), it becomes hard to differentiate CG from NG -- and I agree. It is hard to differentiate, and I believe it's fundamentally not useful to do so, anyway. If the difference between NG and CG is the degree of goodness expressed -- the willingness to accept harm as a side effect of greater good -- then I believe it's fair to file that particular reading of CG under "less than good" and therefore "unaligned". Sure, they value individualism, and this alignment descriptor doesn't indicate that. It also doesn't indicate how active they are in its pursuit, how trusting they are, or a score of other personality facets.

Side contention: CN and NN are the same alignment, and CN is also the same alignment as NE. Read the descriptions -- being unable to commit to a side can be either of CN and NN (and is the defining trait of CN!), while being fundamentally out for the individual good, and fundamentally out for one's own good, are not very far apart either!
Similarly, LN and LE blend together at the edges, and I have never liked the Yugoloth focus on pure evil (feeling that this is a niche better given to the more mythological Devil than the upstart Yugo -- sorry, Shem!) as trumping that more Lawful bent of Devils.
These are weak reasons, though, so I don't raise them as part of my overall argument, and instead more of an impassioned plea for people to agree with me on my personal merits

I believe that the degree of precision afforded by nine alignment buckets was not helpful. The two-axis system was an inaccurate and hard to use tool for miscommunication and argument, not providing enough specifics for roleplay for that to be a redeeming factor.
The five factor system does not provide the same misleading appearance of comprehensitivity, while still being a good metric for telling stories about Good versus Evil.

Sure, it punts on Law versus Chaos, civilization versus barbarity. I am okay with this punt, because while that would be an excellent alignment system for a game, it's hard to reconcile that with a Good versus Evil system, at the core; I'd rather have a series of different mechanics (Honor --> dishonor! Allegiance! Religion!) to model campaigns that center around non-moral strife.

A game with angels and devils, paladins, and clerics, though? Good versus Evil in the core rulebooks, please.

Better?

 

[Guild Goodknife]

I don't understand your point. Are you talking about an evil villain thinking he's the good guy? Because that was possible under 3e. And presumably under 4e as well.

Actually something like that was kind of hard in 3E because of spells like Detect Evil/ Detect Alignment. There was an absolut measure of Good and Evil because of spells like these which made characters like the one you mentioned kind of awkward.

 

[Thasmodious]

Then why bother having alignment in the first place?

Stop making stupid quips and start answering questions.

So the 9 previous alignments accompanied every possible moral iteration? What makes 9 so magical and 5 somehow insufficient?

"Good" is an umbrella. It encompasses a lot of of different personalities that basically identify as actively good aligned. You can still have "chaotic" or "neutral" aspects to your good personality without having the N or C on your character sheet. Did two little letters really define all your characters? Or you just doing what you seem to always be doing, trolling endlessly over every little piece of information that comes out?

Once there were three, then there were nine, now there are five - a decision you inexplicably called the worst possible decision Wizards could have made in regards to alignment. Really? The worst possible? Is it any wonder people just assume you are trolling and respond with quips rather than try to engage in a serious discussion with you?

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not saying they're impossible to play, I'm saying they DON'T FIT in the new alignment bar.

And since you haven't actually read the book and it's section on alignments, this means you're spouting off an uninformed claim and continuing to defend it against those who have actually read the material, since you are ever unwilling to admit that you might be wrong.

So, in light of that knowledge, you're talking out your ass.

 

[Lackhand]

Oh -- hey. So I hear that there are no evil gods in the PHB? (or rather, that this was being discussed, with the ultimate result being that the good gods get a lot more detail in the PHB.)

Where'd the alignment debate come from?

 

[Valdrax]

Also, can someone who thinks he or she doesn't like the alignment system tell me where the line is between neutral good and chaotic good? Lawful evil and neutral evil? I have a hard time drawing those lines definitively.

Funny. I would say that same thing about having you show us the difference between LG and NG or CE and NE. It depends on your philosophical and political biases I suppose which axis seems more true and significant than the other.

It is frankly a shameful thing to see that WotC sees Evil as a Destroyer as inherently more significant than Institutional Evil. It's even worse that WotC sees Good that respects the Laws of Man as more significant than Good that respects Natural Laws -- those of freedom and universal rights. By eliminating that axis from the system, WotC places the likes of Locke, Emerson, Thoreau, and the entire abolition movement into a nebulous terrain between "mere" Good and Unaligned.

Again, D&D has been helpful to many a young teen growing up to realize that morality has more than the one axis taught in schools -- to always obey the rules and to conform to the ideas of what being a "good little citizen" should be.

Also, I'd like to point out that Lawful characters are more likely to constitute the archetypal "Fallen Hero" than Chaotic ones. Paladins who hew to Law over compassion are a staple of the genre, and be eliminating Lawful Evil, you remove the natural position for them to fall into.

Lawful Evil also encompasses institutions that mere destroyers do not create: slavery, organized war, inquisitional purges, etc. Lawful Evil exists to remind us that there are fates worse than mere death and to show us the seductive power of fear of non-comformity to drive decent people to atrocities.

[On a lawful evil dictator: ] Evil or unaligned, depending on priorities.
[On a chaotic good rebel: ] Good or unaligned, depending on priorities.

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.

 

[totoro]

Also, can someone who thinks he or she doesn't like the alignment system tell me where the line is between neutral good and chaotic good? Lawful evil and neutral evil? I have a hard time drawing those lines definitively.

I like the rationale for only good gods in the PHB. However, this is unfair.

WotC defined the alignments inelegantly, and therefore players were confused about how they worked. It is the fault of those who came up with the definitions, not those who had trouble understanding them. I had to redefine alignments in my game to overcome these problems and my players have no problem distinguishing between any of the 9 alignments. I have one solution; there are many others, I'm sure.

 

[Piratecat]

Quit being rude, folks. Disagreeing with someone does not somehow provide you with an exception to our normal rules of conduct.

 

[lutecius]

wow. And I was wondering where the real alignment war was at. I hadn't checked here, the title should have been more explicit.
What a mess! Way to go Chris Sims