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

[Mercule]

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.

Dunno if anyone has responded yet -- I followed the headline link from Morrus.

I assume you're talking about objections to the new alignment system. In which case, my concern isn't so much with there being a noteworthy difference between CG and NG. It's that I don't think there's any more difference between those two and the extant LG. I.e. if LG is sufficiently different to be given its own designation, then so is CG.

I'm also concerned because there has historically been a subset of D&D players who feel that LG has always been "more good" than the others and/or CG has been "nearly neutral". Without bringing too much real-world political beliefs into the mix, I've always considered that view to be not only patently false, but also somewhat offensive. When it's some nut on the Internet making such a statement, it's pretty easy to ignore. When the company putting out the manual appears to be taking that position, it isn't.

I'm granting the benefit of the doubt, so far, but it definitely qualifies as a concern.

 

[Mercule]

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

I wouldn't defend the old one, either. In fact, I largely dropped it (converted it to an "allegiances" system, actually), IMC. I consider the old one to be seriously flawed, open to personal interpretations, and flame-war fodder.

All of which says to me that it is either brave or foolish to include the LG and CE alignments in 4e.

 

[eleran]

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

I didn't play it because I read it and couldn't stop yawning long enough to actually enjoy it.

 

[Jack99]

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?

Yeah. As the beast said, that's not irony. And considering your last quote (the one about your clever players) of what I had written, sarcasm isn't your forte either.

Anyway, just for the record, I never said you were a bad guy for talking about 4e. I merely stated that I found it odd that someone (that would be you in this case) who bitches about just about every aspect of 4e, chooses to come here and complain. I get those that have reservations about certain aspects, and thus wishes to debate them, but the people like you who come here, seemingly with only one purpose: to trash 4e. Those people (that would still be you) I don't get. But of course, do as your wish. It is after all, a "free" country.

About defending the 4e alignment system. If you had understood Ari's posts, you would have understood that it is fairly obvious that they have changed the meaning of the different alignments, at least in some parts. Given that, how do I defend it? One could argue that it is just as hard to attack, since we know zip and nada, aside from the fact that CG-LN-LE-CN-N do not exist anymore, instead we have unaligned and (most likely) different definitions of good, evil, lawful good and chaotic evil.

So, if you want to rant about it, rant about the fact that it breaks your 3.x needless sense of symmetry that there are no longer 9 alignments. Arguing anything else is pointless, as you do not know what "range" the new 5 alignments cover.

Wow. This just felt like work.

Cheers

 

[Raven Crowking]

I wrote an alignment article for the #0 issue of Dragon Roots (www.dragonroots.net), that (I believe) gives sufficient reason for a NG and CG alignment to exist....if only as a DM tool. Of course, if one were to say that there isn't a sufficient difference between NG and CG to warrant seperate alignments, one might also note that certain folks on messageboards have argued for a very long time that there isn't sufficient difference between good and [/i]evil[/i].


RC

 

[Lackhand]

Of course, if one were to say that there isn't a sufficient difference between NG and CG to warrant seperate alignments, one might also note that certain folks on messageboards have argued for a very long time that there isn't sufficient difference between good and [/i]evil[/i].

While I haven't seen the "merge good an evil" argument, there is a difference between the two -- there really isn't that much which (in the rules as writ) separates NG from CG; there is a lot which separates G from E. So, basically, those people are wrong

You can make a nine-bucket alignment system work -- I didn't follow the link (I'm at work), but you're an intelligent chap, so I'm assuming here you did, which seems reasonable -- but that's not what the core rules do.

I see nothing objectively better about 9 v 5, especially when the 9 are already admitted to be fuzzy and overly generic -- the only reason not to drop all the way to 3 for me is to reserve a few keywords for demons and paladins.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I see nothing objectively better about 9 v 5, especially when the 9 are already admitted to be fuzzy and overly generic -- the only reason not to drop all the way to 3 for me is to reserve a few keywords for demons and paladins.

One could, of course, make the same argument about stats. The differences between Intelligence and Wisdom, for example, are as fuzzy and generic as that between CG and NG. Why not simply use two stats, Physical and Mental? It would certainly make the game easier.

The problem with this (and also the problem with dropping certain aspects of alignment) is that in so doing you are dropping a measure of texture from the game for little benefit. I would agree that alignment is relatively fuzzy given WotC's treatment of it; Gygax was far more direct about what alignment meant in 1e. That doesn't mean that the "Nine Alignement" system is bad; it means that making it wishy-washy is bad.

And what is the benefit of preserving keywords in a system where alignment is mostly dressing (having little or no actual game effect)? Why not have "good" demons or "evil" paladins? That certainly seems to be the direction in which WotC is taking the game.

Of course, I cannot (for obvious reasons) reprint the article I wrote for Dragon Roots here, but it seems clear to be that even without assuming game effects for alignment, and even assuming alignment is dropped from the game completely, the nine-alignment system has been (and can certainly continue to be) a fantastic tool for the DM (if not the players) to quickly determine how a creature is likely to act, as well as to quickly determine what attitudes, institutions, and ceremonies a religion or society is likely to have....as well as how often they will bend to accommodate the needs of individuals (including PCs).

IMHO, of course.

 

[Lizard]

Evil gods are described briefly in the PH and detailed in the DMG. Contrary to limiting player options, it gives the DM the option to go by a default assumption that PCs don't worship evil deities without "over-enforcing" the point. (Most D&D games involve heroic PCs, at least as good as the Han Solo who shot first, not villainous ones.) The DM has all the info needed for evil paladins, whether a player ever creates one or not. If a DM wants PCs to have access to evil gods, it's easy enough to do.

As long as you don't rename demons to "Baatezu", it's all cool. (Or were those devils? Whatever. That kind of thinking drove me away from D&D for a decade.)

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.

In both cases, the neutral is willing to use any tool to acheive their ends (good or evil) while the more focused alignments reject them. A lawful evil character would feel supporting a society which spurned tradition would leave him less able to exploit it, and so, would promote order, conformity, and the like as means of pursuing his own self interest. If he could be convinced abandoning these things would lead to greater gain for him, he would shift alignment to neutral evil. Likewise, the chaotic good would not support the use of "We've always done it this way!" as a means of promoting good; even if the tradition was benign in the short run, the CG would fear that it would eventually become calcified and a tool of oppression.

The neutral cares only about the ends; the Lawful and Chaotic care about the means.

(Toss me in with those disappointed with the alignment system, and the implication that there are no more honor-bound arch-foes or Robin Hood style noble rebels...for that matter, where are the uncaring bureaucrats (LN) and bored princelings (CN)? The idea that chaos is "double evil" and law is "double good" is also chafing.)

 

[FourthBear]

Since alignment proponents constantly note that alignment is in no way prescriptive or limiting to any character's behavior or motivations, I don't see why people are worried that somehow this new alignment system will somehow imply that you can't have evil tyrants or good rebels anymore.

 

[Lizard]

Since alignment proponents constantly note that alignment is in no way prescriptive or limiting to any character's behavior or motivations, I don't see why people are worried that somehow this new alignment system will somehow imply that you can't have evil tyrants or good rebels anymore.

Depends on the descriptions of what the alignments entail, eh wot?

If "Chaos" is assumed to be an aspect of "Evil", and law is presumed to be an aspect of "Good", that pretty much says anyone who opposes the law is evil -- and anyone who upholds it is good.

The Sheriff is LG; Robin is CE. So it goes.