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

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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 am so glad that you asked.

I have been a DM for the better part of 30 years and one of my favorite aspects of D&D is the alignment system. I have no trouble differentiating between neutral good and chaotic good. A neutral good character is much more likely to respect social codes and actual written laws than a chaotic good character. Similarly a chaotic good character is extremely likely to flaunt social convention and break what they would identify as a pointless rule. If a chaotic good character sees a sign that says "keep off the grass" he or she would stick a toe on the grass just to break what is, in their eyes, a ridiculous rule (we all know people like this). The neutral good character would avoid the grass unless some need should arise that would render rule-following behavior counter-productive. The lawful good character, by contrast, would go to great lengths to avoid stepping on the grass. A LG would only step on the grass at great need or perhaps only to render aid or avoid bodily harm.

If anything the difference between neutral good and chaotic good is far more noticeable than the difference between lawful good and neutral good. Generally the chaotic aspect of chaotic good characters causes them to make choices which would clearly distinguish them from a neutral good character. That is chaotic good characters live to break the rules. Conversely lawful good characters and neutral good characters are harder to distinguish because both would tend to follow reasonable rules and the only distinction would be seen with rules that tend toward pure order with no moral component.

BTW I am adopting the 4th edition rule set but I will also continue to use the alignments as presented by our founder Gary Gygax. Gary forgive them, they know not what they do.

PS If you want I can also explain the difference between neutral evil and lawful evil. Let me know if you need more help.

No, I don't think this qualifies as a definitive answer since in this answer the Lawful-Netural-Chaotic qualifiers have nothing to do with the Good element.

Is the Chaotic Good person going to violate the restriction on the grass regardless of who it hurts or how it hurts them? How then is that person Good?

If the Chaotic Good person is in fact going to consider the ramifications of stepping on the grass before making a judgement call on stepping on the grass how then does the Chaotic Good person differentiate from a Neutral Good person who's defining characteristic is that they would make that exact same judgement call?

A Lawful Good perspective is easy to differentiate because they would consider the good purpose of staying off the grass and then work to develop systems for promoting that good.

Since both Neutral good and Chaotic good work on an individualist basis there's really no difference between them unless you're simply going to specify that the Chaotic Good person is an anti-social jerk with a good heart which doesn't seem meaty enough to justify an alignment.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Me too.

IMHO, the difference between Law and Chaos is not the same as that between Good and Evil. Law and Chaos describe philosophies that place either the state or the individual as the primary recipient of rights. In a Lawful society, the individual may be subservient to the needs of family, guild, city-state, what-have-you. In a Chaotic society, existent social instutions exist primarily to give weaker members of society a measure of freedom similar to that held by the stronger members....even if that freedom amounts to nothing more than "Whatever you can take and keep is yours".

RC

Personally I'm really resistant to the politization of the alignment system.

Among other things, the description you give of a Chaotic society makes no sense to me in terms of the old alignment system.

More basicly, this is just another illustration of the fact that old system was six alignments not nine. The two categories really had nothing to do with each other.

 

[hong]

Heh. There's an awesome poster of a guy wearing 'Anti-paladin' armour, which is basically a whole bunch of human babies strapped on.

You got it backwards, mang!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Among other things, the description you give of a Chaotic society makes no sense to me in terms of the old alignment system.

Funny, then, that Dragon Roots had to get permission to print my article, which was based initially on Gary's definitions.

RC

 

[Orius]

Orius, really, I think you nail it pretty well. If each alignment can cover such a very broad stretch of concepts and, in addition, many concepts can be described with several alignments, then alignment as a descriptive tool is pretty weak.

I don't think it's really bad as a descriptor, it can be a helpful starting point for establishing character personality. Some players like to make up the PC as they go along.

I've been reading alignment debates every since I started following internet D&D discussions (about 8 years now), and one conclusion I've reached is that it's one of rules that bad DMs tend to abuse. I think that comes from pre-3e rules that penalized PCs for alignment changes. So if the DM didn't want the PCs to do something, it was "against their alignment", and they lose levels if they go ahead and do it anyway. Or getting rid of pesky paladins or rangers by putting them in a Catch-22 situation. Cursed alignment-changing objects made the situation murkier.

The 3e DMG was much more casual about it, having no penalties at all except for the alignment-specific characters like paladins, which is probably the best way to do things. Really, 3e alignment is WAY better compared to 2e alignment, you know the system with silly stuff like CN acting in a completely random fashion, or TN doing good deeds one day and "balancing" the next with evil. And then there's even sillier stuff from earlier editions like alignment languages.

Like I said, either the system should have been dumped if all it does is cause problems at the table, or at least put a section in the DMG that strongly discourgages alignment abuse from the DM. I wouldn't be surprised if this system causes arguments over the distinctions between Lawful Good and just mere Good.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it's really bad as a descriptor, it can be a helpful starting point for establishing character personality. Some players like to make up the PC as they go along.

I've been reading alignment debates every since I started following internet D&D discussions (about 8 years now), and one conclusion I've reached is that it's one of rules that bad DMs tend to abuse. I think that comes from pre-3e rules that penalized PCs for alignment changes. So if the DM didn't want the PCs to do something, it was "against their alignment", and they lose levels if they go ahead and do it anyway. Or getting rid of pesky paladins or rangers by putting them in a Catch-22 situation. Cursed alignment-changing objects made the situation murkier.

The 3e DMG was much more casual about it, having no penalties at all except for the alignment-specific characters like paladins, which is probably the best way to do things. Really, 3e alignment is WAY better compared to 2e alignment, you know the system with silly stuff like CN acting in a completely random fashion, or TN doing good deeds one day and "balancing" the next with evil. And then there's even sillier stuff from earlier editions like alignment languages.

Like I said, either the system should have been dumped if all it does is cause problems at the table, or at least put a section in the DMG that strongly discourgages alignment abuse from the DM. I wouldn't be surprised if this system causes arguments over the distinctions between Lawful Good and just mere Good.

Oh, probably. There will likely be grey areas between LG and G and CE and E. Sure. But, I think, with broader descriptions, we'll have fewer grey areas.

Look at demons for a second. All demons are CE. Yet, we have (in 3e) Malcanthet who creates intricate, lenghty, Byzantine plots that take years to come to fruition. To me, that screams lawful, not chaotic. And, if it really is chaotic, then, what's the difference between lawful and chaotic?

To put it another way, if two descriptors, presumably opposites, can apply to the same thing, then, those descriptors, for all intents and purposes are not terribly useful.

 

[Jawsh]

If the new alignment system is what I'm guessing it is, then I'm pretty sure I like it. Here's my take on it, and I'm probably going to stick to my take whether it turns out to be right or wrong.

Lawful Good: Lawful Good combines the 3E alignments of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good. Any character interested in the good of a larger group is going to be fostering cooperation, unity, respect, and harmony. Law is basically a positive force in the multiverse, as it is what holds societies together. Because I'm keeping the Great Wheel cosmology in my homebrew campaign setting, the following planes will be Lawful Good: Nirvana, Arcadia, Celestia, Bytopia.

Good: Good combines the 3E alignments of Chaotic Good and Neutral Good. Any character solely interested in the sanctity of life, the dignity of the human (or other sentient) spirit, and freedom for the purpose of the pursuit of happiness, is Good. The following planes are Good: Elysium, the Beastlands, Arborea, Ysgard.

Chaotic Evil: combines the 3E alignments of Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil. There is no longer such a thing as being morally ambivalent toward Good and Evil. That is to say, if you are Chaotic without any qualms about human life and dignity, then you're defined as Chaotic Evil. You might not be a psychopathic killer, but if you lack a minimum level of empathy toward your fellow human beings, then cosmically speaking, you're Chaotic Evil. Chaos means interest in the self, the whims of the self, without regard to how it affects other people. If you did care about other people, then you would be Good, not Chaotic. Chaotic planes: Limbo, Pandemonium, the Abyss, Carceri.

Evil: combines the 3E alignments of Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil. In this new system, Law is defined as a positive force designed to allow communities to hold together. Evil, like Chaos, is also selfish, but it is less interested in personal freedom than it is in personal gain. Evil can sometimes work within lawful society, but this is an accident. Evil planes: Hades, Gehenna, Baator, Acheron.

Unaligned: is the new True Neutral. The most common way to be unaligned is to be non-sentient. If you're a typical human being living in a typical human society, you're probably Lawful Good. Contrary to what has been said by some in this thread, most sentient people do have an alignment. Unaligned folks are either those with severely limited mental capacity, or hermits who have taken strict oaths of non-involvement. Unaligned planes: the Outlands.

 

[Hussar]

Unaligned: is the new True Neutral. The most common way to be unaligned is to be non-sentient. If you're a typical human being living in a typical human society, you're probably Lawful Good. Contrary to what has been said by some in this thread, most sentient people do have an alignment. Unaligned folks are either those with severely limited mental capacity, or hermits who have taken strict oaths of non-involvement. Unaligned planes: the Outlands.

This is most likely wrong.

The designers have already stated that the vast majority of people are unaligned.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Look at demons for a second. All demons are CE. Yet, we have (in 3e) Malcanthet who creates intricate, lenghty, Byzantine plots that take years to come to fruition. To me, that screams lawful, not chaotic.

If the intent of the byzantine plot is to destroy society, how could that possibly be lawful?

Unaligned: is the new True Neutral. The most common way to be unaligned is to be non-sentient. If you're a typical human being living in a typical human society, you're probably Lawful Good. Contrary to what has been said by some in this thread, most sentient people do have an alignment. Unaligned folks are either those with severely limited mental capacity, or hermits who have taken strict oaths of non-involvement. Unaligned planes: the Outlands.

Even in 3e this is wrong. With the exception of few philosophical wackos, Neutral was simply the alignment of the typical human.

If you have an alignment, it implies you are willing to 'fight' for it.

Most people think bullying is wrong but don't intervene when they witness it, for example. Because most people are unaligned. But if you are good, you will intervene when the local bullies are picking on the poor orphan. Otherwise you are not good, just a well meaning neighbour.

Similarly, if you are evil, even a cowardly type, you are willing to regularly take risks to satisfy your selfish impulses. Otherwise, you are not evil, just an unpleasant unaligned neighbour.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I had another chance to take a look at the 4E PH again, and the first thing I did was clarify my understanding of the difference between Evil and Chaotic Evil.

Evil characters are selfish and ruthless, but their primary concern is getting rid of things that get in their way. They're perfectly fine with order and structure so long as they can benefit from it.

Chaotic Evil characters want to destroy anything that isn't of active use to them, and have no patience with anything that doesn't fill that role.