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

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Evil gods are described briefly in the PH and detailed in the DMG. Contrary to limiting player options, it gives the DM the option to go by a default assumption that PCs don't worship evil deities without "over-enforcing" the point. (Most D&D games involve heroic PCs, at least as good as the Han Solo who shot first, not villainous ones.) The DM has all the info needed for evil paladins, whether a player ever creates one or not. If a DM wants PCs to have access to evil gods, it's easy enough to do.

(emphasis added)

Sorry, but what you describe isn't contrary to limiting player options. It is limiting player options. If you have to ask for special permission, it is a limited option.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For the record, I'm not claiming the 4E alignment system is perfect. Personally, I'd have much preferred if it was Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful/Unaligned, without the L(G) and C(E) descriptors.

I 100% agree, however, I also agree that the 4E version will do. I will almost certainly play unaligned and work out his personality for myself, or if I feel like playing an extreme, go one way or the other.

Oh! And before I forget what the thread's about: I sure like the idea of the Evil Gods being in the DMG. It's less Gods to pick from for the players (speeding up character generation) and I won't have to say "Oh no! Not that one, did you check his alignment? I know you want to play a cleric of a god of competition, but this one is "crush your opponents" not "friendly sparring", and you want the latter!"

Of course, I'll probably use my own pantheon I've been using for 20 years anyway.

And to the poster above: Controlling options is not the same thing as limiting them. It's actually potentially limiting.

Fitz

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Assuming for a second that it is, let's think about it.

That alignment system is odd on its own, to say nothing of the gods. There must be some missing information.

 

[Raduin711]

(emphasis added)

Sorry, but what you describe isn't contrary to limiting player options. It is limiting player options. If you have to ask for special permission, it is a limited option.

It doesn't limit player options explicitly any longer. Now it simply implies that evil deities are the province of the dm. Does that implication keep you from worshipping hextor? I suppose it would depend on your DM...

Plus ca change...

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

It doesn't limit player options explicitly any longer. Now it simply implies that evil deities are the province of the dm. Does that implication keep you from worshipping hextor? I suppose it would depend on your DM...

Plus ca change...

It's a limitation. And it's new.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I like it, since evil gods won't have their knowledge be known to everyone. To actually pursue and worship a evil god is a very individual thing. As such, it is something that be discussed with the DM, so makes sense to have it in the DMG.

Note: Based on the Warlord Excerpt there will be evil gods in the class description (maybe Race to???) for what evil god be a good pick.

So the PHB just doesn't give the info on it. Since it is a specific character trait to be discussed with the DM, just like playing a monster you need to refer to the MM.

 

[WyzardWhately]

EVIL

"Lawful Evil" is also flawed. People keep mentioned the Big Bad Evil Tyrant as the epitome of lawful evil. Two problems: 1) did the tyrant really become a tyrant without ever breaking the law? and 2) what about all the subordinate non-tyrants- why is there no definition of "lawful evil" that encompasses them? In a hereditary monarchy, it might be possible to become an evil tyrant without breaking the law, but unless they became a tyrant after building their power base, they probably would get knocked off by the not-so-lawful evils who stand to take over after the lawful evil tyrant's death (and leaving the "lawful evil" nontyrants to stand around wondering my they never get total power). Seems to me that the "lawful evil" tyrant is only lawful to the extent that the laws serve his purposes- which is all of them, if you are the tyrant.
You may be running "honorable" as a synonym for "lawful", but that doesn't really fit the definition either. A code of honor is a set of rules that govern the character's behavior. Well, even "dishonorable" characters have codes of conduct- those codes are simply less detailed or strict. Real life provides a great example- robbers, arsonists, and murderers all break the law without any real sense of "honor", but they won't cross the line to molesting children. The fact that they have a code of conduct that they won't break doesn't make them lawful; the fact that some characters may have a stricter code of conduct than most folks is just too vague a distinction to hang an alignment term on.

Now, an evil character might decide to (just about) always follow the law- but unless the laws have all kinds of evil-sized loopholes or exceptions, how would the character get to act evil? We don't really care about the guy who impotently wishes he got to be evil but never acts on it because those actions are illegal. Perhaps the society does have evil loopholes- but if so, isn't the "lawful evil" character being lawful only because he coincidentally happens to be in a society that lets him be evil? Would that character really follow all of the laws of a different non-evil society, even when no one was looking? Probably not.

Same goes for "neutral evil"- as with neutral good, this character doesn't care about following the law. However, the neutral evil character's actions will sometimes coincide with the law because it suits the character. So really, the only difference between "lawful evil" and "neutral evil" is how often the character's actions are going to coincide with the law. Neither will always follow the law, unless the laws allow them to be as evil as they want to be without breaking the law. But they are both evil.

Chaotic evil is another story. Chaotic good characters will sometimes follow the law because laws fostering community prosperity tend to also foster goodish behavior between folks and good characters (including chaotic good characters who don't like some laws or leaders) believe in the same behaviors. Chaotic evil characters have no such belief in such goodish behaviors or community prosperity. Without concern for the general "good" or the laws that require behavior that supports the general "good", these characters can be truely reckless, ruthless, and unpredictable. These are the characters that will do literally anything to get what they want- even cross lines that other evil characters won't typically cross. That is an easily determined distinction between them and other evil folks. I am ok with them gettting their own label.

Speaking as a law student: You can do all kinds of terrible things without breaking the law. It is very, very easy to abuse people under color of law, even if you're not actually a gov't official of any kind. Also, you can do terrible things within the confines of the law without being a tyrant. Would not the minions of the tyrant who carry out despicable statutes without hesitation ALSO be lawful evil? I don't like to bring real-world politics into internet discussions, but I suspect that if you don't think there are lawful evil people who are not actually the dictator/CEO/PM of their country, you don't read the news much.

 

[Thasmodious]

Speaking as one who has a degree in both Philosophy and Literature, I can say with some authority - degrees and credentials have little to do with discussing our favorite fantasy game.

 

[Valdrax]

What? That's not what I was saying at all.

I was in no way, shape, or form implying that rebellion somehow "mitigates" good. I was saying that a character rebelling against an evil government may be doing so for good reasons or non-good reasons. But a good rebel is no less good than a good non-rebel. An evil dictator is no less evil than an evil non-dictator.

The problem is that the person you were replying to specifically said "a chaotic good rebel who fights to throw down their government" and "a lawful evil dictator . . . omeone who's unquestionably evil but still has a strict code of conduct." Those possibilities have nothing to do with the scenarios you were presented with.

Now, if you didn't mean what I thought you meant from a straight reading of the post, then please forgive me, but the PoV I thought you were expressing was not unique to you. There's already some back and forth on various message boards about whether the "honorable villain" is really Unaligned or whether Individualism (i.e. Chaos) is compatible with Altruism (i.e. Good).

In other words, 4e has already planted the seeds for viewing LE & CG characters as neither Good nor Evil. The axis of morality has been constrained in the system -- not as strangely narrow and specific as Palladium's alignment system, but still in a way that reflects the creator's values and not a spectrum.

The fact is, almost any archetype can be portrayed by an unaligned character. That's what I was trying to get at--the fact that the examples under discussion could be approached from either an aligned or unaligned angle.

True, Unaligned seems to be "situational morality," but by that logic any concept period could be Unaligned and there's no need to have alignments in the first place. (A viewpoint I wouldn't disagree with, by the way, but we're stuck with them.)

The fact that we have alignments at all suggests that the alignments actually mean something -- that separating LG from "regular" G and CE from "ordinary" E is a meaningful value judgment, but that CG and LE are not. And that makes a statement -- one which I think is mildly offensive to people who believe in philosophies like civil disobedience or in the importance of protest and "making waves" to maintaining a just society.

 

[Lackhand]

Stuff that she or he wouldn't have said if he or she were listening to meeee

Again: Calling LG out is not a snub against civil disobedience: it's a recognition of the place of the Paladin in fantasy lit'rachur. I maintain that by folding CG in with NG (which is presumably what's happened), they argue that civil disobedience is in line with that which is good by default.
edit: I think there's something to be said for "to be civilly disobedient" being "to be, unqualifiedly, good".

This is a good thing and a vindication of your point of view. It's only a problem if LG = double-plus-good. Everyone who's seen the books has seemed to contraindicate this.