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

[malraux]

How? How is this more of a straight-jacket? Please give examples of what kind of characters you're are not able to play with this system.

Hmm, a modron?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Hmm, a modron?

Modrons don't exist in 4e, as far as I know.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[Tervin]

Sure you can. Why? Because alignment is not and never has been the sum total of someone's personality. It's an umbrella term; a very and deliberately broad category, in which there's almost an infinite number of variations. This has been true of past editions, and is even more true of 4E.

The 4E alignment system breaks down if and only if you assume that a character's alignment must describe every aspect of their personality, goals, and behavior, and that simply isn't the case.

Of course alignment is not the sum total of a personality. It is shorthand for a part of it, nothing more. This is no reason to take away categories that people have been using. It doesn't add any new design space. And it doesn't really matter if people are interpreting the alignments in different ways, especially if the game makes them matter less (which I really really hope will be the case - alignment is good for light fluff and design shorthand, not for mechanics).

Law vs Chaos was good shorthand for conflict building where heroic characters actually had a real choice which side they wanted to pick. If you can explain to me how the new alignment system helps me design such conflicts, then I will change my view.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You know just thinking, what with the Great Wheel being dead and all, what if the whole idea of alignment being a external idea imposed upon the actions of the PC/NPCs is gone. In its stead replaced by what each individual PC/NPC believes/has had its mind turned to.

So...

Lawful Good: Believes they are proper and "good" by strictly following a set of commands or laws set by themselves or others.

Good: Believes that their way of life is for the betterment of themselves and others.

Unaligned: Follows their own path without any larger consideration of the world, beyond the immediate circumstance.

Evil: Believes that their own personal gain and fortune is proper and above the betterment of any others.

Chaotic Evil: Driven to act out in chaotic manners because of instinctual hatred or fear, or a twisted perversion.

Thus you could have a Chaotic Evil Paladin who serves a "good god" by him being someone who has an instinctual hatred for demon-born.

Or, a Good Villain because he believes the acts he commits is for the betterment of others.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

There's a huge difference between a chaotic good rebel who wants to overthrow the government and a neutral good cleric who just tries to heal the people living there.

FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me if a rebel who wants to overthrow the evil government would be LG in 4e, even if said rebel has many of the characteristics associated with CG in 3e. We'll have to wait and see, but I don't think "Lawful" means the same thing in 4e as it did in 3e. Nor does "Chaotic" necessarily mean the same thing, either.

And Vhailor is the very freaking avatar of Lawful Neutral. He *does not work* as "unaligned," "evil," or "good."

I'm not familiar with this particular character, but LN works as "unaligned" to me. LN might even be "evil," depending on how ruthless the LN individual enforces laws.

EDIT - And even if in 4e LG = Most Noble Good and CE = Most Profane Evil, with Good being CG and NG and Evil being NE and LE, that would work for me, as that describes most campaigns I've played.

 

[Teemu]

Aren't most people unaligned in 4e? So a LG, CG, or LE character in 3e could just as well be unaligned in 4e, and only those with a strong connection to the supernatural concepts of good, evil, law, etc. have a proper alignment.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not familiar with this particular character, but LN works as "unaligned" to me. LN might even be "evil," depending on how ruthless the LN individual enforces laws.

Tsk, haven't played Planescape: Torment? For shame

Honestly, I just don't see the REASON for this change. If you're going to make alignment fluff only, why bother changing it since it'll have no effect? And if you're going to make it a part of mechanics, then you ARE purposefully limiting player choices, and by a lot. This change just doesn't make sense; it's the very literal definition of dumbing something down for no cause.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Honestly, I just don't see the REASON for this change. If you're going to make alignment fluff only, why bother changing it since it'll have no effect? And if you're going to make it a part of mechanics, then you ARE purposefully limiting player choices, and by a lot. This change just doesn't make sense; it's the very literal definition of dumbing something down for no cause.

Or you know, since we haven't read what alignments stand for now there is a proper and fine reasoning behind the change. The way alignment is viewed in 4e could be quite different and as such having all 9 alignments wouldn't work.

 

[Jack99]

Tsk, haven't played Planescape: Torment? For shame

Honestly, I just don't see the REASON for this change. If you're going to make alignment fluff only, why bother changing it since it'll have no effect? And if you're going to make it a part of mechanics, then you ARE purposefully limiting player choices, and by a lot. This change just doesn't make sense; it's the very literal definition of dumbing something down for no cause.

First of all, you don't really seem to like any changes 4e is making, so why bother? I mean, seriously.

Second of all. Through the years, even though it hasn't been intended, many players have felt alignment like a straight-jacket. Making broader (generally) alignments will thus not serve as a straight-jacket, but instead as the opposite.

Now, you have repeatedly told us that you have great, intelligent players. Well, guess what. Not all players are brilliant, and WoTC makes a game for the largest group, not for your group.

Also, your posts make me realize that I miss Derren's rants....

 

[FadedC]

That's not the answer, and I very clearly stated why that's not the answer.

There's a huge difference between a chaotic good rebel who wants to overthrow the government and a neutral good cleric who just tries to heal the people living there.

There's a huge difference between a simple murderer and an evil tyrant.

There's also a huge difference between a lawful good character who believes in erradicating evil and chaos where it may lie and a lawful good character who believes all life is sacred and even heals the enemy when the opportunity arrives.

Similarly there is a huge difference between somebody who is chatic evil because they kill and torment for their own benefit and somebody who serves a chaotic evil good and is doing so to make the word a more twisted place on general principle.

Massive differences between the moral codes of characters on the alignment system is more the rule then the exception, in every version of D&D there ever was.