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

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

So because previous alignment rules didn't define everything, we should make it even worse?

Oh NOES! I can't put LE next to the name of my villian? Wizards has completely removed evil tyrants from 4e! 4e is teh_devil!

You know, a smiley would go really well right here.

Then why bother having alignment in the first place?

Stop making stupid quips and start answering questions.

I am happy that chaotic neutral is gone as an excuse for behaving like an idiot./QUOTE]

People will be idiots irregardless of alignment. Now they're all unaligned idiots.

Cirno is showing us why the alignment system in general should go. People who believe that if their character's mindset isn't explicitly listed in the corebooks, you can't play that character.

That's not what I'm saying - either you can't comprehend it, or you're purposefully putting words in my mouth. Either way, stop.

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

What, why bother trying to have a conversation over changes? Are you serious?

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.

"Not all players are smart, and WotC makes a game for that group." That's...hell, you said it, not me.

 

[eleran]

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."

If you can't play these, it's your imagination that's broken, not the alignment system. I will have no problem playing the second. I have no desire to play the first since I prefer to play heroes. And I don't know, or care, who the third is. Planescape was for powergamers.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A difference in personality, yes. In methods, yes. It alignment, not necessarily, not if alignment is broad enough that both qualify as "good."

Then why bother keeping Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil?

Sure he does. You only feel he doesn't because he's been listed as LN in prior editions. Or are you honestly trying to tell me that such a character would have been inconceivable in a game that didn't have the previous nine alignments? Because I'll tell you something; I've played a "letter of the law over all other considerations, be they good or evil" character before--in Vampire, which has no alignments at all.

I'm saying that the character does not fit in the alignment system as the current changes exist now. Vhailor literally could not exist in the dumbed down new version of alignments.

Vampire doesn't have an alignment system. That's a huge difference from having a crappy one.

Why have character gender? Why decide if your character is shy or outgoing? Why decide if he's a joker or has no sense of humor? Why decide if he comes from a noble family or grew up on the streets?

Stop being asinine. Last I checked, none of these had a scale in the game like alignment does.

Because it's part of role-playing, and part of defining the character. Some games use alignment for part of that; some don't. But it's never been meant as either a straightjacket or the full definition of the character; it's just one personality aspect or motivation among many.

Then ONCE AGAIN, why have alignment in the first place?

Not one person in this thread has defended the changes, all you've done is say "WELL SO WHAT, THE PREVIOOUS EDITION HAD FLAWS TOO[/b].

CAN you defend or promote 4e without constantly using "Well 3.x sucks!" as a crutch?

Tell me why the new alignment system is better then the old one. Hell, I shoulud just copy that sentence and paste it on every reply I make.

And it does, if you choose an alignment. It just doesn't describe the parts you seem to want it to.

And if you don't think it does, make everyone unaligned. That's what it's for--people who don't gravitate toward one of the four extremes.

And if someone gravitates towards an extreme that the new alignment bar - because it's a bar now - doesn't allow?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you can't play these, it's your imagination that's broken, not the alignment system.

As I said to someone earlier, stop being asinine. I'm not saying they're impossible to play, I'm saying they DON'T FIT in the new alignment bar.

 

[Family]

For broken imaginations, particularly concerning ethics, please watch Firefly &/or Serenity.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

A difference in personality, yes. In methods, yes. It alignment, not necessarily, not if alignment is broad enough that both qualify as "good."

Then why parse out Lawful Good, other than designer caprice?

 

[eleran]

As I said to someone earlier, stop being asinine. I'm not saying they're impossible to play, I'm saying they DON'T FIT in the new alignment bar.

You stop being supercilious and I will drop the assinine. You are being blatantly disrespectful and insulting to people just because they don't agree with your original point.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm saying that the character does not fit in the alignment system as the current changes exist now. Vhailor literally could not exist in the dumbed down new version of alignments.

And this is the point you're not getting. Of course he could. He just wouldn't have "LN" next to his name. Any character can exist in the game, with any personality traits.

You're still assuming that a character must be defined by alignment. He doesn't have to be. It's only there for people who want it.

Vampire doesn't have an alignment system. That's a huge difference from having a crappy one.

Vampire did, however, have a Nature and Demeanor system. Did you honestly feel that you couldn't play a character whose Nature and Demeanor weren't spelled out in the book?

Same thing. It's there as a guideline, not a straightjacket.

Stop being asinine. Last I checked, none of these had a scale in the game like alignment does.

So what? What does it being a "scale" have to do with anything? It's still an RP tool for those who want it, nothing more.

Then ONCE AGAIN, why have alignment in the first place?

Because some people like it? Because it's a convenient shorthand for those who want to use it?

Tell me why the new alignment system is better then the old one. Hell, I shoulud just copy that sentence and paste it on every reply I make.

I personally, up to this point, never claimed it was better. I'm just arguing that it's not worse, and it's not even remotely restrictive.

That said, you want to know why it's better? Because it does allow for the "unaligned" option. Because you can play a character who's "good" without being capital-G "Good." Because it removes any and all mechanical impact of alignment, leaving it easily removed for those who don't want to use it.

And because it's much clearer about the fact that it doesn't define the entirety of a character. This, IMO, is a major step up from past editions, which sometimes left people with the impression that it should.

And if someone gravitates towards an extreme that the new alignment bar - because it's a bar now - doesn't allow?

The point you seem to be unable to accept is that not everyone is supposed to match one of these four alignments perfectly. That's part of what the "unaligned" option is for. The vast majority of people in 4E, PCs or otherwise, don't have an alignment.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

Weird. Having read this thread I have had a strong feeling of deja vu.

Warhammer FRP and its alignment system is very similar to 4E's:

4E version / WFRP version / WFRP explanation

Lawful Good / Law
Laws are here to make everyone here feel good. Let's be nice to each other and let's obey the laws. Oh, and we can punish the wicked the way we want (provided there is a law for that).

Good / Good
We're nice (not necessarily nice to everyone and not necessarily law-abiding). Oh yes, and we may be racist.

Unaligned / Neutral
Just the usual guys, minding their own business, leading small lives. No antics, no heroics, just the livin'

Evil / Evil
Oh yes, we want more from life, we deserve it, cause we're better. And let's go get it now, rules and others be damned. But while at getting us stuff, we can still be nice and sometimes even nice.

Chaotic Evil / Chaos
We have a mission, we're not gonna be persuaded away from it, and you're not gonna like it.


Pretty similar and worked in WFRP (1st edition, anyway). And being good did not preclude you from being insane xenophobic racist wardancer capable of slitting throats of anyone trespassing into your beloved forest. Your good just does not necessarily mean everyone else's good

regards,
Ruemere

I think WHFRP's system is very different. For example, Chaos is not Chaotic Evil. All the Chaos Gods combine both positive and negative aspects, even if they are generally the bad guys. Chaos is much more like CN in 3.5. So although there are 5 alignments in both WHFRP and 4e, the choices between alignments are not the same. This is key.

Consider if there were 5 different alignments in 4e: LG, NG, CG, LN, CN. If you wanted to play an evil or neutral character, you'd be forced to shoehorn him into an alignment that doesn't fit him at all. Can we all agree this would be bad?

That is a severe version of the problem with 4e's alignment system: it has few choices for alignment and they are bad choices. This forces characters to be shoehorned into descriptions which do not fit them.

 

[Monkey Boy]

Wasn't this thread about evil gods?

I like the new alignment and the fact that 4e de-emphasizes alignment in general.

Lets get back to evil gods. Evil PC's are not that uncommon in the games I play. Sometimes you want to play a Raistlin, Lord Soth or Boba Fett type character. I've had friends play priests of Bane and Hextor and get along fine with the group. If anything its made roleplaying more interesting and enjoyable.

The idea of making pacts with devils to power your warlock and then not knowing just what it is the devils agenda is (unless you buy the DMG) seems odd.