Radar on :
No comment.
Thursday, June 12. 20084th Edition: Alignment
Wow. This is a good idea, IMO. There are five alignment options in 4th edition, and only these 5:
Good: Protecting the weak from those who would dominate or kill them is just the right thing to do. You can follow rules and respect authority, but you're keenly aware that power tends to corrupt those who wield it, too often leading them to exploit their power for selfish or evil ends. When that happens, you feel no obligation to follow the law blindly. Lawful Good: An ordered society protects us from evil. When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grant privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given in to evil and just authority becomes tyranny. You are not only capable of challenging such injustice, but morally bound to do so. However, you would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods. Evil: It is my right to claim what others possess. Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others' freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them. Chaotic Evil: I don't care what I have to do to get what I want. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn't directly contribute to their interests. Unaligned: Just let me go about my business. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Ancient of Days on :
You, sir, are a coward. I *DEMAND* you have an opinion on this, and that you express it here in words - preferably English, although Sindarin would be acceptable.
Radar on :
I believe that all they did was just make the alignment issue more ambiguous. It would be interesting to see what penalties one gets between being Good and Lawful Good, because it seemed as though it described the same thing to me. If others disagree I would like some examples of the difference between them.
Ancient of Days on :
I felt it was pretty clear that Lawful Good "would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to more rebellious and lawless methods" - it's pretty heavily implied that a simply "Good" character would prefer the latter.
Daboo on :
I know you always had a problem with the old 6-part system, but I really liked it.
Ancient of Days on :
*I* never had a problem with it. The problem came in the way we interpret certain aspects of it - for example, I believe that a Chaotic Good person can torture, maim, or even kill someone to gain information that will stop a greater evil - because the end will justify ANY means.
Daboo on :
I know. And this new system wouldn't allow for any bickering, because you could just shrug and say, "well, I MOSTLY believe in being nice, but..." because of the ambiguous wording. "You prefer"? "Often"? And you can be UNALIGNED? Come ON. There's no challenge in role-playing an alignment like this. This new system is for pansy-a** players who can't handle the stress of trying to play a complex personality. Plus, we'd have to give up the bickering!
Ancient of Days on :
I've never attempted to "role-play an alignment", I "role-play a character" - and I follow the moral compass that said character has in my own imagination. For that reason alone, I'm glad to see the "Unaligned". It allows me to do what the character would do, without worry about external judgment.
The Mad Giggler on :
Interesting. I'm guessing they're trying to make alignment an easier concept for new players. I really like the dual axis Law-Chaos/Good-Evil because of the weird (at least to me) alignments like Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Evil.
Wren on :
I liked the old alignment system better because it gave an insight into a character--like it's been mentioned, I think this new system is just too ambiguous.
Also five bucks says that the majority of version 4 players are going to wimp out and just go as 'unaligned'. It seems like the easiest option; anything you do can be justified by saying "Well it seemed like a good idea at the time." Which is lame. The 'easy' option makes for bland roleplays. Ancient of Days on :
The value is in its very ambiguity - no longer will people try to argue about it because it's clearly intended to be ambiguous!
I have been in too many D&D groups where alignment arguments ruined a night of playing to consider "Unaligned" to be "lame", "easy", or "bland roleplaying" - in fact, I would say that this opens up MORE options for role-play because your character's actions are no longer constrained by some arbitrary 'alignment' option which can never be altered. In fact, I can absolutely say that I have NEVER ONCE used my alignment as a 'role playing' device - my character is the role playing device I choose to use. Alignment has ONLY ever caused arguments IME, including in my days as a sometime-member of the RPGA. I have to say that I'm surprised at the reaction by you and Daboo - I expected you to be just as pleased about this as I am, given how many nights we have spent arguing over interpretation. With 4e rules, I would take "Unaligned" and it would prevent any and all arguments about interpretation of a particular alignment choice. How can that be a bad thing? Sideshow on :
Personally I don't like it. It just feels like they dumbed down the current alignment system.
All it really does, is allow groups the chance to as you said, take "Unaligned" simply to avoid arguments, rather than actually playing a character as their alignment. By dumbing it down it takes away a great RP Aspect of a character. Ancient of Days on :
I hate you all. Why can't you just acknowledge that I'm right?
Sideshow on :
When are you going to start being right?
Radar on :
I am willing to take your side on this issue, because I am frankly sick and tired of this argument. I tire of this argument because it has sabotaged too many gaming nights and prevented the story from unfolding. D&D is not an exercise in strict alignment adherence IMO. It is about story telling and being with good friends.
Sideshow on :
See, I don't see this as a failure of the Alignment system so much as a failure of the people involved.
Ancient of Days on :
Perhaps, but since I've played D&D with a LOT of different groups over the years, and this argument has ALWAYS come up in EVERY SINGLE GROUP, I'm saying that I'm glad to see it because it's entirely possible that I am simply not cut out to play a particular alignment.
|
Items of InterestTrekWest5 Subscriber Count: Syndicate This Blog |
