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

[DandD]

Or the sheriff is evil because he takes more money than the peasant had to pay, making up new taxes on the fly, and is an underling of an usurper who stole the throne, while Robin Hood still opposes the illegitimate rulership that is maintained by the brutal henchmen of King John (and before anybody's taking objection to it, we're talking about the fictional Robin Hood-story told like that in Disney- or other morning cartoons).
Others would simply say that both of them are unaligned.

 

[Valdrax]

How about destroying the world (or the universe, for that matter)?

Any villain willing to go that far automatically promotes to Chaotic Evil from plain evil, in my book...

Oh, I wouldn't say that. It all depends on their motivation. Take the Elder Evils, for example.

LE: Atropus, Pandorym, Zargon
NE: Ragnorra
CE: Father Llymic, the Hulks of Zoretha, the Worm that Walks
CN: The Leviathan

Plenty of spread across the Evil alignments (including one effectily non-sentient, non-evil creature).

Of their sentient followers that seek to destroy the world, 2 are LE, 2 are NE, and 2 are CE. (I've ignored 9 other characters because they aren't motivated to destroy the world though that may be the effect of their actions).

Even NE characters like Caira Xasten (who is motivated by hatred of the gods caused by the death of her lover by a falling meteorite) or Soelma Nilaenish (who is motivated by extreme depression and a desire for attention) can want to destroy the world. The two LE evil characters are thralls of their Elder Evil, and the two CE characters are motivated by an immortal undead's suicide impulse and the desire to rule over the ruins, respectively.

So even WotC hasn't previously considered wanting to destroy the world to be an exclusively CE act. Motives can vary wildly along with general personality traits (i.e. alignment).

 

[Lizard]

Or the sheriff is evil because he takes more money than the peasant had to pay, making up new taxes on the fly, and is an underling of an usurper who stole the throne, while Robin Hood still opposes the illegitimate rulership that is maintained by the brutal henchmen of King John (and before anybody's taking objection to it, we're talking about the fictional Robin Hood-story told like that in Disney- or other morning cartoons).
Others would simply say that both of them are unaligned.

Sure. But then let's just scrap alignment altogether.

The D20M "allegiance" system never worked well for me; pretty much everything the players met had an allegiance to "Evil", which made the system effectively the same as alignments. It COULD have been a good system, but it wasn't really developed well, into something like, say, affiliations from PHB2. (The other problem was magical powers triggering off allegiance, so that you had a sword of CIA Agent Slaying or something...)

 

[Valdrax]

Others would simply say that both of them are unaligned.

And that's the rotten implication of the new system. Not only are their Good and Evil not in any way special (unlike LG & CE), but their very goodness and evil are called into question by the system, making the argument that they're both Unaligned and thus morally equivalent in their deeds.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Well, we haven't seen the new system yet. We only know the alignment descriptor names, not what they stand for.

The "Lawful" in lawful might no longer stand for "Upholding the Laws of the Land", nor is Chaos standing for "Breaking the Laws". Chaotic Evil means you're so frigging evil you want to destroy and break down everything, for your own selfish desires, not caring about the suffering you bring to others.
Lawful Good might mean you are wiling to fight for good and the well-being of every person, willing to institute order and societies to further these goals, possibly at the expense of your own. By this interpretation, Robin Hood could be Lawful Good. The Sherrif is probably not chaotic evil, since he's not really trying to tear down the world, but he's evil, since he's only out for himself.

The new system isn't the same as the old with 4 alignments removed. It is a new system, and the meaning of the terms are different from what they were before. Most importantly, there is no law/chaos axis that is orthogonal to the good/evil axis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The new system isn't the same as the old with 4 alignments removed. It is a new system, and the meaning of the terms are different from what they were before. Most importantly, there is no law/chaos axis that is orthogonal to the good/evil axis.

From what I am reading, the new system is properly defined as the "Wishy-Washy Alignment System" (WWAS).

The new WWAS is not as bad as claiming that 4e will be OGL, and then pulling a very restrictive agreement out of the closet (exactly, one notes, what some of us predicted to the hooting derision of others!). After all, you can presumably ignore the WWAS and adapt the one from previous editions. You just can't do it in a product you intend to sell.


RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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

Uh, I was on the fence when I first came here, and yes, I HAVE defended 4e on this board in the past.

It seems if you don't kowtow to everything, however, you're automatically marked as a bumbling old grognard. Perhaps I need to change my signiture back to "I hope there's a day where people on the fence are seen and treated as such."

My problem with the 5 alignment system isn't "there aren't nine!," and quite frankly the cries of "USELESS SYMMETRY!" don't work when 4e uses it in different ways (Or can you explain why every god has the same angel? Did they all get together and decide Jeff, the god of Handsome Caucasian People should be the one to decide matters for all of them?). My problems are 1) that there is JUST as big of a difference between lawful evil and neutral evil - if not MORE SO - then there is between neutral evil and Chaotic Evil, and that 2) there is now a distinction where "lawful = good, chaotic = bad."

 

[Lizard]

Most importantly, there is no law/chaos axis that is orthogonal to the good/evil axis.

Which is another point in the "Bad" column, as I always thought law/chaos was more interesting than good/evil. A party of mixed lawful and chaotic characters, all good, get into some very fun debates over the proper course of action, and lawful neutral, with its modrons and formians, was a very cool source of foes.

 

[Kishin]

s (Or can you explain why every god has the same angel? Did they all get together and decide Jeff, the god of Handsome Caucasian People should be the one to decide matters for all of them?).

The gods all agreed upon a powerful, quasi-independent third party to carry out certain tasks? Yeah, that covers it for me.

On the other hand, I don't know why alignment changes are causing such a ruckus, as (at least for me) it has so -little- impact on my gameplay experience. I play my characters and run my NPCs based elements of their personality, background, etc. al. All the alignment system ever was for me was a quick two word way to semi-generalize their worldviews after the fact.

 

[Jack99]

Uh, I was on the fence when I first came here, and yes, I HAVE defended 4e on this board in the past.

In the past? You have a May 2008 join date. So unless you are an old member, who for some reason has changed account, I find your comment slightly odd. When that is said, I went through your old posts, and to be honest, you don't really come off as someone who is "on the fence". Sure, not all of your older posts are as negative as the ones in this thread, hell, some of them are even neutral or positive towards some aspect of 4e, but on the whole, you do come off as someone who has pretty negative feelings towards 4e. Fair enough though, to each his own.

It seems if you don't kowtow to everything, however, you're automatically marked as a bumbling old grognard. Perhaps I need to change my signiture back to "I hope there's a day where people on the fence are seen and treated as such."

I disagree. But if you feel that a lot of people are "after" you, maybe, just maybe you should consider that there might be a reason for it. Maybe it is the way you communicate or express yourself?

My problem with the 5 alignment system isn't "there aren't nine!," and quite frankly the cries of "USELESS SYMMETRY!" don't work when 4e uses it in different ways (Or can you explain why every god has the same angel? Did they all get together and decide Jeff, the god of Handsome Caucasian People should be the one to decide matters for all of them?).

I agree that 4e does have a tendency towards useless symmetry as well.

My problems are 1) that there is JUST as big of a difference between lawful evil and neutral evil - if not MORE SO - then there is between neutral evil and Chaotic Evil, and that 2) there is now a distinction where "lawful = good, chaotic = bad."

Players will still be able to be what you call Lawful Evil, this is a fact. If that is a fact, why do you care if it is called something else? Lets for a second say that in the PHB, under the description of evil, you will find what equals your current definition of Lawful Evil, along with your current definition of Neutral Evil - Why does it matter? You can still make the same characters, they can still behave the same way as before. They just have another alignment.. Seems to be you guys are making a whole lot of out nothing. Maybe you have a point, but we really won't know til June 6th.

Cheers