Deep Blue 9000
First Post
FireLance said:
Fixed.
D&D 4E No evil gods in 4e?
- Thread starter Jack99
- Start date
Fixed.
Deep Blue 9000
First Post
pemerton said:
So a priest of pure Chaos is aligned to Chaos but of the alignment "unaligned"? That sounds like shoehorning to me.
My own view is that the Paladin ought to feel the force of a dilemma here, because s/he has sworn an oath of honour and righteousness. Other Good people needn't feel the same dilemma.Valdrax said:
Back when 3E was coming out I remember making a similar contention in a usenet alignment thread: that a Paladin ought to have qualms about engaging in revolution even against a tyrannical state.
It's not an obvious objection to a moral system that it has difficulty providing guidance in certain situations. It would be a flaw in a game if moral quandries meant players get shafted. But with the demechanicalisation of alignment in 4e this shouldn't happen.
That's like complaining that, in 3E, a priest of pure agriculture can't be Agricultural alignment. Given that Chaos is no longer part of the alignment system, if you worship that you're not locating yourself within the alignment system. So yes, you're unaligned. (Although I suspect that, in fact, most of what one might want to describe as pure Chaos will, in 4e, be labelled Chaotic Evil.)Deep Blue 9000 said:
Simon Marks
First Post
Deep Blue 9000 said:
The same priest is also not a priest.
According to his class.
So, whatever. It's a description, not a definition.
Actually, in this question, the correct answer is to see that that Slave is returned, and that the master takes no unlawful punishment, and in the view that the punishment is extreme (As I imagine it would) the paladin has a responsibility to change the system that is in place, under what ever code he is beholden too. The nature of the descriptions of the old alignment system robbed it. By seperating alignment from mechanics, and having a catchall, it is a better solution, within my mind.
The ultimate reason for leaving out lawful, chaotic alternaties, that I can think of, is that it is actually a lot easier to define good/evil debates than law/chaos. Law, especially, is more tenuous to objectively define.
Order/Chaos works better.. in which case Lawful Good has no requirements to follow a Law. Merely a consistent system.
The ultimate reason for leaving out lawful, chaotic alternaties, that I can think of, is that it is actually a lot easier to define good/evil debates than law/chaos. Law, especially, is more tenuous to objectively define.
Order/Chaos works better.. in which case Lawful Good has no requirements to follow a Law. Merely a consistent system.
Last edited:
MadMaligor
First Post
I will defend the new system, as best I can with the limited amount of information provided so far...
It really comes down to opening up the alignment system to accomodate for a broader view and a much wider range of definitions. The old school 9's compacted your basic moral/ethical codes of conduct into slots. If you were CG you did this, and if you were LE you acted like that....and so on and so forth. All very aptly described in this and other posts, as well as being basically defined in the handbooks of old.
Surely you could go outside of the norm, thats what roleplay is all about, but the definitions for each subset of the 9's meant that a DM had to decide what repercusions could/should/or would happen when a player went outside of his/her alignment. The most significant being the three big alignement classes (Paladin, Druid, Ranger...barring any aberations like the anti/dark Paladin etc...). The real hard part is defning where those lines are drawn, and if Player and DM didnt see the line drawn in the sand the same way...here come the arguments...hehehe. You can see the gaming parallels being drawn here in this post.
The 9's of old had gaming impacts that could be huge, especially for the three "Oh crap you just busted that alignment and now your gonna pay!" ones. Aligment also had a sizeable impact on other aspects of the game as well, the "Detect" system being a good example.
Most of the time these issues get settled during a gaming session. But I bet there are a good number of people out there reading and posting who have played in some sessions where pizza got tossed, beer got spilled, and "You wouldn't know the definition of LE if Artemis Entreri stabbed you in the face!!" type insults were shouted across the table.
4E puts alignment squarely in the "personality" corner...for lack of a better term. Its a part of the general characteristics of a player, NPC, or moster. Not the defining conduct measuring stick. What that does is open up the wiggle room on what a character is allowed to do or how a DM measures the damage done when a player goes outside of the norm.
What we now have is the basic good vs evil axis...with both extremes LG (for example using a leader role...ranging from an elected benevolent president to overzealous religous tyrant) and Chaotic Evil (ranging from your military backed cutthroat dictator to murderous lunatic of a monarch by birth). Everyone else is in the middle.
LN is covered in the middle (your average citizen who follows the laws of the land, but is not neccessarily good or evil...ie he/she has viewpoints that may go either way like legal prostitution or indentured servitude, maybe bribery under or over the table is a normal means of commerce, or class systems by birth are seen as normal and "ok"). CN is likewise covered in the middle (your average street urchin/thief doing whatever it takes to survive by whatever means but is not neccessarily a good or evil person but rather commits both types of acts whenever he/she feels like it).
In 4E it seems only the extremes of the axis are noted, and even then the game effects are likely to be minimal. Whats important is the roleplay and judgements of the players (possibly with a lot more emphasis on insight/perception).
To me, this opens up a whole line of possibilities, especially with regards to classes who were formerly tied to alignment as a "ball and chain" type of requirement that now doesnt have to be house ruled to death.
That is at least what I am getting out of the information so far.
Sorry for the length and our wait will soon be over
Mal
It really comes down to opening up the alignment system to accomodate for a broader view and a much wider range of definitions. The old school 9's compacted your basic moral/ethical codes of conduct into slots. If you were CG you did this, and if you were LE you acted like that....and so on and so forth. All very aptly described in this and other posts, as well as being basically defined in the handbooks of old.
Surely you could go outside of the norm, thats what roleplay is all about, but the definitions for each subset of the 9's meant that a DM had to decide what repercusions could/should/or would happen when a player went outside of his/her alignment. The most significant being the three big alignement classes (Paladin, Druid, Ranger...barring any aberations like the anti/dark Paladin etc...). The real hard part is defning where those lines are drawn, and if Player and DM didnt see the line drawn in the sand the same way...here come the arguments...hehehe. You can see the gaming parallels being drawn here in this post.
The 9's of old had gaming impacts that could be huge, especially for the three "Oh crap you just busted that alignment and now your gonna pay!" ones. Aligment also had a sizeable impact on other aspects of the game as well, the "Detect" system being a good example.
Most of the time these issues get settled during a gaming session. But I bet there are a good number of people out there reading and posting who have played in some sessions where pizza got tossed, beer got spilled, and "You wouldn't know the definition of LE if Artemis Entreri stabbed you in the face!!" type insults were shouted across the table.
4E puts alignment squarely in the "personality" corner...for lack of a better term. Its a part of the general characteristics of a player, NPC, or moster. Not the defining conduct measuring stick. What that does is open up the wiggle room on what a character is allowed to do or how a DM measures the damage done when a player goes outside of the norm.
What we now have is the basic good vs evil axis...with both extremes LG (for example using a leader role...ranging from an elected benevolent president to overzealous religous tyrant) and Chaotic Evil (ranging from your military backed cutthroat dictator to murderous lunatic of a monarch by birth). Everyone else is in the middle.
LN is covered in the middle (your average citizen who follows the laws of the land, but is not neccessarily good or evil...ie he/she has viewpoints that may go either way like legal prostitution or indentured servitude, maybe bribery under or over the table is a normal means of commerce, or class systems by birth are seen as normal and "ok"). CN is likewise covered in the middle (your average street urchin/thief doing whatever it takes to survive by whatever means but is not neccessarily a good or evil person but rather commits both types of acts whenever he/she feels like it).
In 4E it seems only the extremes of the axis are noted, and even then the game effects are likely to be minimal. Whats important is the roleplay and judgements of the players (possibly with a lot more emphasis on insight/perception).
To me, this opens up a whole line of possibilities, especially with regards to classes who were formerly tied to alignment as a "ball and chain" type of requirement that now doesnt have to be house ruled to death.
That is at least what I am getting out of the information so far.
Sorry for the length and our wait will soon be over
Mal
ObsidianCrane
First Post
To the original topic, I'm pleased the PHB removes the evil gods, mind I prohibit evil PCs so it makes more sense anyway.
I like the new alignment system, because it lets my players be "naughty" without them being "evil" - as my experience suggests few people can actually manage evil behavior in a meaningful non-disruptive manner.
If anything I'm disappointed they didn't just go with Good - Unaligned - Evil. I might still house rule that way anyway, depending on what the rules say once the book is in hand (or its previewed).
I like the new alignment system, because it lets my players be "naughty" without them being "evil" - as my experience suggests few people can actually manage evil behavior in a meaningful non-disruptive manner.
If anything I'm disappointed they didn't just go with Good - Unaligned - Evil. I might still house rule that way anyway, depending on what the rules say once the book is in hand (or its previewed).
Similar Threads
