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

[gribble]

Planescape was for powergamers.

Spoken like a person who's never actually played Planescape.

 

[Lackhand]

Really, CE vs. NE has it worse in my mind. While LE characters will frequently restrain their own Evil in the name of Law, there's nothing that I can think of that CE characters would do that would be Chaotic that a NE character wouldn't do.

(Unless you're of the popular philosophy that Chaotic == Stupid/Insane.)

Hey, man, it's not just me. Check out the SRD, specifically the section on Chaotic Evil -- not just "doesn't" form groups, but can't, and when it manages to put one together through main force, it's slovenly and disorganized. And let's not forget the "driven by urges" part -- so they're low Int and low Wis? Great, thanks.

This is one of the reasons that the choice kind of bugs me. Whereas Chris Sims has a very hard time figuring out where NG/CG & NE/LE split, I have a very hard time seeing where LG/NG and NE/CE split. (With the exception of "LG" acts that are more LN or LE in nature, as exemplified by OOTS Miko-archetype Paladins.)

Yeah. Miko's unaligned at best. Her LN shades into Evil so often (I mean, seriously. She thinks she's doing the right thing, but she's the bad guy -- as hong would say, red circle under her feet) that it's kind of ridiculous.
Still, I see your point about the neutrals being fuzzy. I think they're just bad in general, which is why I'm sort of fond of LG/CG/LE/CE but...

If I just want to be Good, with which of those do I most identify, and closest to which alignment will I best behave? I argue, and I think you'll agree, CG is the best alignment for "does the right thing as best as one can".

If I want an evil villain who is smallminded and petty, or selfish, or unsympathetic to the lot of his fellow man? LE is closest, I think -- principled enough to be a member of society, but not _too_ principled; basically trying to do the right thing for himself and his family-unit, regardless of the cost to those outside of it.

So why not just call those Good and Evil?

 

[Jack99]

Is there some quota of 4e a person has to agree with before they can post?

No, of course not mate. However, if you have absolutely no interest and nothing positive to say about 4e, I just don't understand why you spend so much time here, discussing things you don't like. You may do as you want, of course.

(Please note that you = not you specifically, but meant in the broadest sense of the term. It could be Prof.Cismo for example)

Cheers

 

[VannATLC]

If I just want to be Good, with which of those do I most identify, and closest to which alignment will I best behave? I argue, and I think you'll agree, CG is the best alignment for "does the right thing as best as one can".

If I want an evil villain who is smallminded and petty, or selfish, or unsympathetic to the lot of his fellow man? LE is closest, I think -- principled enough to be a member of society, but not _too_ principled; basically trying to do the right thing for himself and his family-unit, regardless of the cost to those outside of it.

So why not just call those Good and Evil?

Or unaligned, seeing neither of those examples is 'powerful' enough to warrant getting somebody chalked one way, or the other, as Good or Evil.. let alone 'Lawful Good' or 'Chaotic Evil'

I'm personally labelling those as 'Others-at-all-costs' and 'myself-at-all-costs'

Within my campaigns, the kind of generic destroying force was chaotic neutral... Now it will be unaligned. Evil required intent, IMO.

 

[Keenath]

I'm just gonna throw this out, and don't expect a response -- not because I don't want to discuss it, but because I'm going to be out of town for the entirety of the next week and I won't be able to get to the internet.

1: I'm not entirely pleased with the hybrid system. I'd prefer to have just Good, Evil, and Unaligned, and let the rest go. I may houserule it that way.

2: I do see why some of this was done.

LE has always been a really squishy state -- being evil generally means, ultimately, selfishness, while law tends to imply working in the system, whatever the system may be. It's always very difficult to point out where LE turns into just NE, so I'm comfortable saying that an evil overlord is just Evil with no modifier.

I think CE makes more sense to keep, especially if LE is gone, because that allows a strong distinction between just evil, and "destroy the world". If you figure CE as the absolute psychopathic destroyer who wants to destroy everything, even itself, then CE kind of works -- it's the Demon, where devils and so on are all just evils. CE isn't "purer" evil than Evil, but it's evil with the added component of a sort of omnicidal madness.

CG had to go, really. I've never been able to wrap my head around the CG/NG distinction, so I can't complain on that front.

Of course, I never saw a lot of reason to distinguish between LG and NG either. But I think I can see a good reason to include it; LG could represent not "purer" good, but good that demands it be obeyed. It's the Annoying Pally alignment. I dunno. That one I may need to consider.

But anyway. Back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

 

[Valdrax]

Hey, man, it's not just me. Check out the SRD, specifically the section on Chaotic Evil -- not just "doesn't" form groups, but can't, and when it manages to put one together through main force, it's slovenly and disorganized. And let's not forget the "driven by urges" part -- so they're low Int and low Wis? Great, thanks.

One problem I have is that Orcs and Goblins (not Hobgoblins) are CE & NE, respectively. Yet, there's virtually no real difference in the organization of their societies -- only a slight tendency towards being a bully or the bullied based on their size. Among their own people, they're both poorly organized tribal races ruled by the strongest members of their tribes who go raiding and can be pressed into large armies by smarter and stronger creatures but have a poor grasp of strategy. But no real difference due to being CE or NE.

Still, I see your point about the neutrals being fuzzy. I think they're just bad in general, which is why I'm sort of fond of LG/CG/LE/CE but...

If I had to pick a 5 element alignment system, that would be my preference over or G/L/N/C/E. It's much easier to handle the neutral 4 as being slightly more to one side or the other than picking whether your prankster is more G or C.

[...]I argue, and I think you'll agree, CG is the best alignment for "does the right thing as best as one can".

If I want an evil villain who is smallminded and petty, or selfish, or unsympathetic to the lot of his fellow man? LE is closest[...]

So why not just call those Good and Evil?

If you want a petty criminal, isn't CE just as good as NE (but both better than LE)?

If you want a member of the community who generally does right by people and generally respects community traditions and mores (even if not a zealot about it), wouldn't LG & NG both apply (but not the more free spirit CG)?

Why not just call those alignments Good and Evil and keep special recognition for those who do what's right no matter what others will think of them or for those who try to make evil institutionalized and thus both permanent and reflexive?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No, of course not mate. However, if you have absolutely no interest and nothing positive to say about 4e, I just don't understand why you spend so much time here, discussing things you don't like. You may do as you want, of course.

(Please note that you = not you specifically, but meant in the broadest sense of the term. It could be Prof.Cismo for example)

Cheers

THe big - VERY big - irony here, is that nobody in any thread has yet to actually defend the new alignment system.

But I guess because I'm trying to talk about why I dislike a part of the relevant system for which these forums were actually made as opposed to the pre-existing system that really has no place here, I'm the bad guy.

...But am I evil, or CHAOTIC EVIL?

 

[Simon Marks]

The big - VERY big - irony here, is that nobody in any thread has yet to actually defend the new alignment system.

That may be because the only people who can defend the new system are still under Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Me, I don't need a NDA or to have read the rules to defend the new system.

It has more broadly defined terms than before, and defines the only things I need it to define. White hats and Black hats. Anything more than defining the sides is irrelevant.
And, with any luck, it will stop these damned stupid alignment arguments. Broad definitions are best.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I too like the new system and makes sense quite well in my head, in being more the personal view of each person rather then the view placed upon those people. (As I talked about when I laid out what each one meant to me earlier in this thread).

 

[La Bete]

THe big - VERY big - irony here, is that nobody in any thread has yet to actually defend the new alignment system.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you insist - the 4e alignment system kicks butt, and gives atomic wedgies to all previous alignment systems.

If for no other reasons (to paraphrase permerton) it should eliminate most pointless arguments about alignments that serve no purpose - except to illustrate to the world at large that we gamers need to get out more.