Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
No evil gods in 4e?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 4235103" data-attributes="member: 8863"><p>I have to disagree.</p><p></p><p>I can see a chaotic person as someone who is always misplacing or losing things. Someone who has no concept of time and is always late. Someone who tends to make a lot of spontaneous decisions and do things on a whim rather than plan ahead. I know plenty of people like that, and frankly they drive me crazy, because I don't like chaos. I don't see any of them plotting to destroy the universe or join weird cults to bizarre gods because they're mad. Nor are they necessarily stupid; they might be quite intelligent, they just have no sense of order.</p><p></p><p>I don't really like this alignment system at all, and I'll agree with what others have said. But then I never had a problem with the distinctions between chaos, evil, good, and law. If they wanted to emphasize good and evil conflicts, then a good-neutral-evil system would have worked fine. If they wanted to completely rid the game of alignment debates, they should have dropped alignment entirely. This looks like an attempt to simplify the whole alignment debate while trying to appeal to the nostalgia of experienced gamers while doing neither. I don't see this ending alignment debates at all, but just introducing new ones. </p><p></p><p>I've said it before, the real problem with alignment debates in the past was that DMs used it to stomp on PCs, particularly paladins. This was even more true in the pre-3e days when the paladin was a significantly powerful class "balanced" only by its rarity in rolling scores using 3d6. If the DM felt the paladin was too powerful for the game, he'd throw some half-assed ethical dilemna his way and say, "Ooops, you commited and evil act. Now you're just a fighter." No wonder the system caused so many fights. If WotC wanted to get rid of this, they should have just dumped alignment altogether. That's what so many gaming groups have done in the past, and it apparently worked for them. What's the point of keeping a partial alignment system anyway if the alignment spells and such have been excised?</p><p></p><p>As for the whole evil gods thing: works for me. They're really a DM tool, and don't need to be in the PHB. I know some will say that it restricts evil PCs and parties, but as I get older, I think I agree more with WotC's and even TSR's view on the matter. I've had evil PCs in my groups before, and they were often trouble. Not all the time, but there were enough cases where the player would use an evil PC to screw around in a way that pissed everyone else off.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Orius, post: 4235103, member: 8863"] I have to disagree. I can see a chaotic person as someone who is always misplacing or losing things. Someone who has no concept of time and is always late. Someone who tends to make a lot of spontaneous decisions and do things on a whim rather than plan ahead. I know plenty of people like that, and frankly they drive me crazy, because I don't like chaos. I don't see any of them plotting to destroy the universe or join weird cults to bizarre gods because they're mad. Nor are they necessarily stupid; they might be quite intelligent, they just have no sense of order. I don't really like this alignment system at all, and I'll agree with what others have said. But then I never had a problem with the distinctions between chaos, evil, good, and law. If they wanted to emphasize good and evil conflicts, then a good-neutral-evil system would have worked fine. If they wanted to completely rid the game of alignment debates, they should have dropped alignment entirely. This looks like an attempt to simplify the whole alignment debate while trying to appeal to the nostalgia of experienced gamers while doing neither. I don't see this ending alignment debates at all, but just introducing new ones. I've said it before, the real problem with alignment debates in the past was that DMs used it to stomp on PCs, particularly paladins. This was even more true in the pre-3e days when the paladin was a significantly powerful class "balanced" only by its rarity in rolling scores using 3d6. If the DM felt the paladin was too powerful for the game, he'd throw some half-assed ethical dilemna his way and say, "Ooops, you commited and evil act. Now you're just a fighter." No wonder the system caused so many fights. If WotC wanted to get rid of this, they should have just dumped alignment altogether. That's what so many gaming groups have done in the past, and it apparently worked for them. What's the point of keeping a partial alignment system anyway if the alignment spells and such have been excised? As for the whole evil gods thing: works for me. They're really a DM tool, and don't need to be in the PHB. I know some will say that it restricts evil PCs and parties, but as I get older, I think I agree more with WotC's and even TSR's view on the matter. I've had evil PCs in my groups before, and they were often trouble. Not all the time, but there were enough cases where the player would use an evil PC to screw around in a way that pissed everyone else off. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
No evil gods in 4e?
Top