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

[Tervin]

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.

Well, I think examples of those differences have been shown time and again in the alignment discussion threads. To me, there is no smaller difference between NG and CG than between LG and NG (or between any two alignments next to each other on the chart). To give an example I myself try to be an NG person. I believe thinking of others is important. I believe that society and civilization are good things, and that laws are necessary - but I also believe that we need to make our own decisions, and realize that laws are less important than what is good for people, even if those laws are written with the best of intentions. On the other hand, other people I know believe that laws stand in the way of good, and that for good to prevail we need to act outside of the norm. They are the activists, the modern Robin Hoods. I see myself as as close them as to the system builders who try to find general soultions that will be good for as many as possible.

As I have not seen the new alignment system apart from the name of the five alignments to choose from, I can of course not discuss this topic on an equal level. One thing annoys me with the change, though. The game does now no longer give support to people who want to create campaigns based on conflicts based on ideas, where it is not easy to spot who is right and who is wrong.

I have never really been a alignment fan, as it often is an invitation to clichés. Still, I see it as a shortcut that makes it easier to understand general ideas for players and DMs. For example, seeing the alignment of a monster makes it easier for me to see where it would fit when I write a story or a campaign. And right there is my problem with the new system. When all "lawful" monsters are good and all "chaotic" are evil, I can no longer as easily create interesting conflicts where heroic characters have problems choosing between two sides that both have their good and their bad points.

Security vs Freedom is an exciting concept, perfect to build civil wars around, for those of us who like to make campaigns that force people to think. 4th Edition will be the first D&D that doesn't help you write those stories. And that, I feel, is a shame.

I see the point in wanting to cut away unnecessary complications, and almost all the time I applaud that. In this case I think you are making a mistake, and that it would have been better to take away alignment altogether.

 

[keterys]

... what I really want to know is what alignment Batman is in the new system.

I mean, let's have priorities here.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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

Ok, a lawful evil dictator. Someone who's unquestionably evil but still has a strict code of conduct.

Or a chaotic good rebel who fights to throw down their government.

Or how about Vhailor, from Planescape Torment? Someone who follows the law to an extreme, doing both good and evil.

You can't just group them with the other "good, evil, or unaligned." Because they're radical in their chaoticness and lawfulness. That last one especially - I cannot for the life of me *ever* imagine Vhailor being defined as "unaligned."

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

... what I really want to know is what alignment Batman is in the new system.

I mean, let's have priorities here.

Batman transcends rational understanding of any alignment system.

The best way I could put it, is that Batman is all alignments. But even that presents a severely limited understanding of him.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well simply, why do they need to have such a strict alignment? Alignment doesn't have any mechanical reasoning anymore so all alignment serves as a purpose is simply, "well, I guess he be evil", hell, since alignment has no mechanical reasoning, if you wish in your game all the old alignments can still be in it.

Simply put all those character don't suddenly disappear simply because their strict alignment from previous games doesn't exist.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ok, a lawful evil dictator. Someone who's unquestionably evil but still has a strict code of conduct.

Evil or unaligned, depending on priorities.

Or a chaotic good rebel who fights to throw down their government.

Good or unaligned, depending on priorities.

Or how about Vhailor, from Planescape Torment? Someone who follows the law to an extreme, doing both good and evil.

Unaligned, or possibly an evil character who also happens to do some good.

You can't just group them with the other "good, evil, or unaligned." Because they're radical in their chaoticness and lawfulness.

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.

The best real-world analogy I can think of is somewhere between religion and political party. (And yes, mods, I'm going to be careful not to actually get into those topics. ) Every member of political party X or faith X might believe Y, but they can and do differ in almost every other respect imaginable.

 

[jsaving]

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.

Sure, not a problem. LG sees an orderly society as the best way to promote the good of all, CG sees maximal freedom as the best way to unlock human potentials, G doesn't see either one as absolute and just wants whatever helps the most people. Huge difference between CG and NG, huge difference between LG and NG, no reason to call out LG as a uniquely special variant of goodness.

Similarly, LE sees an orderly society as the best way to ensure everyone gets what they deserve, CE sees maximal freedom as the best way to do it, E doesn't see either one as abolute and just wants whatever oppresses the most people. Huge difference between CE and NE, huge difference between LE and NE, no reason to call out CE as a uniquely special variant of evil.

What a lot of people are afraid of is that 4e will opt for the more confining notion of law = honor, because honor, at least as D&D defines the term, contains some real-world sins like lying and hence doesn't belong in the law/chaos axis at all. If a law = honor setup were to be adopted, then of course CG would need to be dropped as no one would want to play a character who actually hates honor, which is what CG would have to mean in such a framework. But that just shows why law = honor is a bad idea, at least in my view.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Well simply, why do they need to have such a strict alignment? Alignment doesn't have any mechanical reasoning anymore so all alignment serves as a purpose is simply, "well, I guess he be evil", hell, since alignment has no mechanical reasoning, if you wish in your game all the old alignments can still be in it.

Simply put all those character don't suddenly disappear simply because their strict alignment from previous games doesn't exist.

Then why have alignment in the first place?

As I said earlier, I'd rather have no law-chaos axis or no alignment PERIOD over this bastardization.

 

[Xyl]

To me, chaotic good means someone who respects life and others but puts himself - and only himself - solidly first. He'll provide help to someone else if there's no great cost or risk, and his morals won't let him cheat or steal (except from those who really deserve it), but he really is looking out for number one. The characteristic trait of someone who is chaotic good, rather than unaligned, is that he doesn't favor one group of people or another - he views all other individuals as essentially equal. In some cases, he might hold the ideal of equality highly enough to fight for it, since fighting for his ideals is just another way of fighting for himself.

Lawful evil, on the other hand, is the alignment of someone who divides the world starkly into "us" and "them". Those in the "us" group are everything - a lawful evil individual might even willingly die to advance the group, but at the same time, he has no compunctions about lying to, cheating, or murdering outsiders. Many of the worst examples of real evil in human history have been this sort.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

UNALIGNED UNALIGNED UNALIGNED

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.

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

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.

Then why have it? If you want to get rid of alignment, then DO IT! Don't take off a couple of the alignments and claim it's fixed when all you've done is make it more broken.

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.

No, the 4e alignment system breaks down if you make a three dimensional character. Alignment may not have to describe every aspect, but it has to describe SOME of them.

The best real-world analogy I can think of is somewhere between religion and political party. (And yes, mods, I'm going to be careful not to actually get into those topics. ) Every member of political party X or faith X might believe Y, but they can and do differ in almost every other respect imaginable.

Yes, but I think most everyone would agree that political parties are stupid