Why did they not slay the Chaotic Evil Sacred Cow?

[fnwc]

So, basically they cooked up a kludgy aligment scale and put it back in the game because people hear "Chaotic Evil" or "Lawful Good" and they think "D&D"?

I have a feeling that LG and CE were kept in the game because they needed a differential from someone who was "Evil" (an unscrupulous rogue who would murder someone to rob them) and someone who is "Really, Really Evil" (a cultist of Orcus who would bathe in the blood of infants they just sacrificed).

LG and CE are well known in the D&D world -- plus they sound better than "Really Evil" and "Really Good".

 

[Jadeite]

LG and CE are well known in the D&D world -- plus they sound better than "Really Evil" and "Really Good".

But that is not what they represent. Pure good and pure evil are represented by their neutral, uninfluenced versions. Naming lawful good as "even better" makes it sound as if chaos is evil - which it is not.

 

[Tervin]

Systems like the new Storyteller from WhiteWolf have whole complex systems for managing shades of grey and all the angst of dealing with being forced to do bad things by your situation. D&D doesn't, as that's not what D&D is about.

I think that is selling D&D short. Why can't heroic fantasy be a bit deeper, a bit more philosphical than just good fighting evil?

I am not in any way saying that there is something wrong with the standard good vs evil conflict, but there is no reason for that to be the only thing that a game is about. Suggesting other options for "advanced players" doesn't really take anything away from those who don't want them.

Yes, I have 10 years experience as an angst dealing Storyteller - but I brought that style from my AD&D game. And D&D is simply more enjoyable to play for me these days, so that is where I want to tell my shady stories.

The new rules don't stop me from my game style, it just feels sad to see the designers go on and on about how it is wrong and something that nobody really enjoyed. And it is also sad to realise that so little fluff they create will be useful to me.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think that is selling D&D short. Why can't heroic fantasy be a bit deeper, a bit more philosphical than just good fighting evil?

I am not in any way saying that there is something wrong with the standard good vs evil conflict, but there is no reason for that to be the only thing that a game is about. Suggesting other options for "advanced players" doesn't really take anything away from those who don't want them.

Yes, I have 10 years experience as an angst dealing Storyteller - but I brought that style from my AD&D game. And D&D is simply more enjoyable to play for me these days, so that is where I want to tell my shady stories.

The new rules don't stop me from my game style, it just feels sad to see the designers go on and on about how it is wrong and something that nobody really enjoyed. And it is also sad to realise that so little fluff they create will be useful to me.

Haha, have you checked where you are? Most of the people around these parts who support 4e DON'T WANT intricate storylines with grey area morals and strong emphasis on the party adding their own bits to the story. They want CHOO CHOO, next stop on railroad station, good vs evil forever!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Because Lawful Stupid must ever be balanced by Psychotic Evil.

 

[mlund]

I'm very happy with the way this shook out.

I like having the refined categories of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. They really do have crucial niches / archetypes to play above CG, CN, LN, and LE. I think the CG vs. LG opposition was over-wrought in 3rd Edition. I think the revision to Lawful Good and Plain Old Evil in 4th Edition really set things up cleanly.

If Good in actively benevolent, Lawful Good is constantly strategically benevolent - making plans for tomorrow and constantly examining the means and the ends to what's going on.

Meanwhile, Evil encompasses those with a disregard for others from the predatory to the mildly misanthropic, while the realm of Chaotic Evil is reserved for those who live for nothing but the opportunity to cause other people misery and pain (AKA, Demonic or Cliched Villainy). There's the kind of Evil people can coexist with (urban thieves' guild, un-easy truce with the local man-eating Goblins) and the kind of Evil that you can't get to sleep at night until it is driven off (like demons and serial killers).

Alignments like CG and LE have been rolled into G and E in a well-handled fashion. I also like that Freedom is now integrated into Good while Tyranny is still entrenched in Evil. It seems to be more consistent in terms of values.

- Marty Lund

 

[N0Man]

I'm ok with what they've done. They've gotten rid explicitly defining the most troublesome, misplayed, and misunderstood alignments in the game.

Frankly, it was ridiculous how many boneheaded behaviors I've seen come out of players, just because of some weird notion of what their alignment was.

True Neutral Players felt like they had to balance their good acts with the occasional evil acts, as if it were a sports scoreboard. Frankly, in my opinion, a person who does evil things half the time and good things half the time is either insane, or is plain-out an evil person who occasionally does a good deed. Also, there was the viewpoint of it being about perfect balance. Now the Druid will help bring the Orcs back from the brink of extinction and help kill the humans that now are overpopulating the World. A few years down the road, they can change size and cull down the Orc population. Absurd.

And I don't know how many times I've seen people play their CG characters and I want to tell them, "Look, you're Chaotic Good, not Chaotic Stupid!"

And lawful evil is kind of hard for people to grasp as well, and honestly the concept kind of breaks down at points. Is a terrible tyrant really lawful evil? Some might say yes, some might say no.

Some might argue that 4E dumbs down Alignment, but I disagree. It simplifies it in a way that the average person isn't encouraged to do the dumb things that people often did with the narrow concepts of pre-4E alignments, but yet still allows room for almost all of the missing alignments within the confines of the new alignment system, for those that want to take it up a notch, and understand the nuances.

You can still be Lawful Evil, you'll just be called Evil, mechanically. You can still be Chatic Good, but you'll be called Good.

The only thing that has really been removed is the balance obsessed True Neutral concept, which is replaced by a small mention of a minority of unaligned are unaligned as an actual conscious choice.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I was excited when I heard D&D would be rid of the alignments once and for all! Then I find out that only a couple alignments were garbaged and the rest were still there and I was sad.

I like a world where People are good only because that act that way. I mean theres a reason that psychotic cerial killers look just like everyone else. Chaotic evil doesn't radiate off people. Hell, if you could ask his friends, I'm willing to bet that Hitler was a pretty swell guy to hang out with on the weekends.

Then I read it:

If you chose to take an alignment...

This tiny little fragment of a sentance made my world happy again!

 

[pawsplay]

I really feel the lack of CG in this setup. The CE prizes the feeling of passion and disinhibition. Where is the character who experiences feeling and chaos as good, in itself?

But I'm probably biased, I tend to quiz as CN to CG.