Alignment issues: D&D 4th Ed.

[JonahFalcon]

So, what will the strip do when 4th Edition comes out, which reduces the alignments to just Good, Unaligned, and Evil?

[BRC]

Hey, it's another 4th edition OOts thread, you know what that means!

DIBS ON THE SPINE!
*harvests spine*

[AyuVince]

Transition from 2nd to 3rd took me long enough, I didn't even bother to read any news on 4th edition so far. What's it about?

[Studoku]

I'll take the spleen because it's an inherantly funny word.

[Spiryt]

Roy will begin to weep and will say :

" Jesusicku, what happened to Mr. Frog ?!"

and all what lives shall feast, and the flames of Beltaine will burn.

Can I dib on lungs, anyway?

[JonahFalcon]

Hey, it's another 4th edition OOts thread, you know what that means!

DIBS ON THE SPINE!
*harvests spine*

It's a specific question. Roy's in LG Heaven. What happens to it when there's no LG?

[Forias]

It's a specific question. Roy's in LG Heaven. What happens to it when there's no LG?
You've answered your own question. Updating to fourth edition would screw the whole plot. Therefore its highly unlikely the comic will be updated to fourth edition.

This has been mentioned once or twice on the forums.

[BRC]

It's a specific question. Roy's in LG Heaven. What happens to it when there's no LG?

*sigh* Rich has stated before he regretted the original conversion joke, and so it is VERY unlikely that OOTs will convert to 4e, yet about thrice a week one of these threads shows up. YOU get extra credit because there already is a OOTS 4e thread on the first page.

So, for making another 4e OOTS thread, you get your organs harvested.

[Calinero]

They serious are reducing it to Good, Unaligned, and Evil? Well, I suppose that does allow for more variation....

Anyone called the gallbladder yet?

[Gamerlord]

yet another reason why 4e will stink...

[JonahFalcon]

*sigh* Rich has stated before he regretted the original conversion joke, and so it is VERY unlikely that OOTs will convert to 4e, yet about thrice a week one of these threads shows up. YOU get extra credit because there already is a OOTS 4e thread on the first page.

So, for making another 4e OOTS thread, you get your organs harvested.

Didn't hear that. heh

Fortunately, DMs can use whatever rules they like. I've played the 4th D&D at Comic Con - and know some ppl at Wizards. It's already to streamline the combat... but it's not okay to streamline the roleplaying. :smallcool:

[Saint Nil]

Why does everyone keep asking this question?!

Also, *takes his liver*

[Calinero]

Why does everyone keep asking this question?!

Also, *takes his liver*

Well, to be fair, I haven't seen anyone ask specifically about alignment.

[Bleen]

Yeah, OoTS probably won't go to 4e anytime soon.

Anyway, does the soul count? *yoink!*

[mikeejimbo]

Really people, aren't you being a bit harsh on him?

Also, the heart hasn't been claimed yet, I'll take it.

[David Argall]

To repeat...

The strip has zero chance of conversion prior to next year. Before then, we just wouldn't get the jokes and the writer wouldn't know how popular 4.0 will be.

The chance of changing ever is extremely low. The rules are just too different in too many ways. And we have too much invested in the old rules. Alignment is just a minor difference that adds to the major problems of conversion. [And as has been noted, is definitely a way 4.0 will be inferior.]

[TigerHunter]

That's interesting. I'd just throw out alignment completely if they're getting rid of Law and Chaos.

More eyeballs for my collection, then. *grabs rusty spoon*


Really people, aren't you being a bit harsh on him?
Maybe.

[Kish]

Until very recently, most of the threads have been about, "Do you think OotS will convert to 4ed?" The two on the first page now are the first ones I can remember that just assumed it would.

[Mechsae]

What? this far and no one's gone for the obvious?


Braaaains

[NENAD]

Awww...All the good organs have been taken.

I guess I'll take his skull. Then I can hold it in one hand so I can go off on an emo rant and look cool and mysterious instead of looking like a loser.

[Mauve Shirt]

I'll take the shoulderblades if they haven't been taken.

[SlightlyEvil]

I'll take the gall bladder, which is a funny-sounding organ, just not as funny as spleen.

[JonahFalcon]

I'm sorry I didn't see the FAQ. :smallconfused: I think the combat in 4th ed is fun. I don't like the non-combat stuff.

I just thought it would be a little funny to seeing the chaos of celestial beaurocracy as they coordinate merging heavens. :smalltongue:

[wakazashi.juice]

I don't see the strip ever switching editions, but we never do know with Mr. Burlew...

Dibs on the kidneys.

[David Argall]

What? this far and no one's gone for the obvious?


Braaaains

You have a pixie talking about the strip switching to 4e, and you want the brain?

[Trazoi]

They're really getting rid of the whole Law vs. Chaos shtick? Aww, that's some of the best bits of conflict between philosophies in D&D universes. Admittedly I haven't done any proper pen and paper roleplaying myself (to my regret), but I love all that Law/Chaos stuff in D&D inspired fiction and computer games based on the concept.

Also, I'll call dibs on the pancreas.

[Draz74]

yet another reason why 4e will stink...

You're pretty much alone on that one. Reduced importance of alignment is one of the main things that most fans said they would really like about a new edition, if they had to have a new one, ever since before 4e was announced.

We don't really know the whole scope of the 4e alignment system, but recent rumor holds that there will be five alignments along one axis: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.

[Querzis]

You're pretty much alone on that one.

Hes definitly not alone. I also think it suck and so does Trazoi apparently.

And I'll take his hands for reasons you really dont wanna know :smallamused:

[Trazoi]

We don't really know the whole scope of the 4e alignment system, but recent rumor holds that there will be five alignments along one axis: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.
But what's going to happen to the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil characters? :smallconfused:

I'm genuinely interested in this, as those alignments cover some of my favourite fictional characters. Many of my favourite villains in my favourite stories have a code of conduct that make them Lawful, and the good-hearted free spirit hero (Chaotic Good) is extremely common.

I could see abolishing the whole alignment system altogether so it doesn't straight-jacket the players into a particular mode of thinking. But I don't quite see how it could work well with Law = Good and Chaotic = Evil implied by one axis. But then again, I haven't role-played so I don't know what the problem is that they're trying to fix here.

[Calinero]

Well, I kind of like the new alignment idea. Just saying "evil" or "good" leaves a lot more freedom of choice. You don't have to pick "chaotic good" and constantly ask yourself if you are chaotic enough...you can just try to be good, like a real person does.

[Jayngfet]

I call his liver!

[Draz74]

But what's going to happen to the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil characters? :smallconfused:

I don't know -- the axis I said is piecework, derived from an offhand comment Bill Slaviksek said in an interview. But I would guess that those characters are now merely classified as "good" and "evil."


Hes definitly not alone. I also think it suck and so does Trazoi apparently.

That's why I included a "pretty much" clause. Being in the extreme minority can still be pretty lonely, even if there's a group of people in it.

Seriously, before 4e was announced, whenever people would start "what would you want if they ever made a fourth edition" threads, "No alignment (or at least a lot less of it) built into the rules!" was probably the strongest theme.

[Trizap]

I call dibs on his nose

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Right kneecap, liver, and lungs are mine.

Don't ask. :smallamused:

[Trazoi]

I don't know -- the axis I said is piecework, derived from an offhand comment Bill Slaviksek said in an interview. But I would guess that those characters are now merely classified as "good" and "evil."
Thanks for the info. I'm interested mainly because I'm fascinated by the mechanics of games, and so I'm interested in how the fine points of D&D work. I often wished I did know some good RPG players close by who'd be willing to let me join in, but unfortunately I've also got the issue of lack of time to regularly put aside for RPG playing.

I suppose I'm mostly concerned with the classification of "Lawful Good" being the ultimate progression on one side of the axis and "Chaotic Evil" being the other. Particularly the "Chaotic Evil" one. Nearly every depiction I've seen of Chaotic Evil falls into the mindset of "crush, kill, destroy", which is fine for a zero dimensional video game baddie but not that great for a well thought out villain. I much prefer a Lawful Evil villain with a plan and the support of a society behind them. It's the difference between Sir Knightly versus the Big Bad Demon as a plotline over Robin Hood versus the Sheriff of Nottngham; the latter has more potential for interesting stories in my view.


Seriously, before 4e was announced, whenever people would start "what would you want if they ever made a fourth edition" threads, "No alignment (or at least a lot less of it) built into the rules!" was probably the strongest theme.
I'm asking purely as an inquiry because I'm interested in this: what's wrong with the alignment system currently in use in Third Edition that so many people want it streamlined? Is it just that it's too difficult to work with?

I could see how it could be improvement for alignment to be significantly watered down, but then you might just want to get rid of it all together. Is it looking like 4E alignment is just for class abilities like Detect Evil, and is otherwise rather meaningless? (But wouldn't that be the case in 3E also? :smallconfused:)

[Kish]

We don't really know the whole scope of the 4e alignment system, but recent rumor holds that there will be five alignments along one axis: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil.
GAAAAH! I was hoping this meant they would be eliminating the system that equates chaos with evil in D&D. If what you just said is true, far from eliminating it, they're restoring it to 0D&D levels.

[Mewtarthio]

I could see how it could be improvement for alignment to be significantly watered down, but then you might just want to get rid of it all together. Is it looking like 4E alignment is just for class abilities like Detect Evil, and is otherwise rather meaningless? (But wouldn't that be the case in 3E also? :smallconfused:)

I heard they were removing Detect Evil and the like. I believe alignment is now meant to be mostly for DMs to quickly check and see what "team" an NPC is playing on. It'd probably be useless if the PCs themselves were unaligned, or if Good vs Evil were downplayed.

Also, I have never heard of "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" being on the 2D axis. Do you have some sort of a link to back that up?

[Halvormerlinaky]

The pancreas is MINE! I'm diabetic and need a new one, plus backups. You can never be too certain.

[David Argall]

Also, I have never heard of "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" being on the 2D axis. Do you have some sort of a link to back that up?

It's more a warhammer idea, but D&D has a long history of confusing Law=Good and Chaotic=Evil. Given the number of drug users who played D&D while dodging the law, it's a bit hard to understand, and even less even to see why they want to go back to such an absurd system.

Now I am sure the surveys wanted improvement in the alignment system, and 4.0 has adopted as a mantra that simplicity is good [while adopting some rather complex ideas.] So it is not surprising they are trying to simplify the alignment system. Whether they are improving it is quite another story. From roleplaying, it looks to be just another way the new system will be lacking. From the simplistic "We're the good guys and we can do any evil deeds we want" view, it may be an improvement.

[factotum]

I could see abolishing the whole alignment system altogether so it doesn't straight-jacket the players into a particular mode of thinking. But I don't quite see how it could work well with Law = Good and Chaotic = Evil implied by one axis.

Guessing you never played the Basic or Expert versions of D&D--in those, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic were the only alignments available.

[Fish]

This isn't the place for such a discussion but I can see why they'd simplify the alignment system. The difference between "Chaotic Good" and "Neutral Good" is really pretty difficult to define.

[Bleen]

Awww...All the good organs have been taken.

I guess I'll take his skull. Then I can hold it in one hand so I can go off on an emo rant and look cool and mysterious instead of looking like a loser.

You should take his skull and shove a spear through it then plant that in the ground to hang up a banner depicting a skull with a spear shoved through it holding up a banner. And add lots of SPIKES.

Also, lol, alignments, etcetc. Killing Law/Chaos was the worst thing they could've done. They should've killed Good/Evil and kept Law/Chaos as the only axis.

[Teron]

The good thing about these threads is that with every one I learn another good reason to stay away from Fourth Edition. At this rate I'll be scared to touch the books with my bare hands by the time they come out.

The other good thing is the steady supply of finger- and toenails, with which I will build Naglfar. I hereby claim JonahFalcon's.

[LesserHellspawn]

Well, the simplified alignment system does get rid of the "Paladin in a lawful evil society" problem. If he fights evil there in 3.5ed, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be chaotic. If he adheres to the law, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be evil.

Then again I'd rather change the Paladin class than throw out half of the alignment system.

Btw., has anyone claimed the eyes yet ?

[kerberos]

Well, the simplified alignment system does get rid of the "Paladin in a lawful evil society" problem. If he fights evil there in 3.5ed, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be chaotic. If he adheres to the law, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be evil.
Come on, I don't even play D&D and I know that isn't true. Lawful means having a strict code which you follow (or something like that). it does not mean you have to follow the law.

[Trazoi]

Guessing you never played the Basic or Expert versions of D&D--in those, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic were the only alignments available.
Nope, never played them :smallsmile:. I've extrapolated what knowledge I have of D&D from video games, webcomics, reading through the d20 ruleset and from forum discussions like this.

I like the sound of a Lawful/Chaotic axis only - good and evil are so subjective. But then I'd question why you need alignments at all. Then that'd lead to arguments about why you need all these fancy rulebooks in the first place when a bunch of creative roleplayers with an inventive DM and a bunch of normal six sided dice should suffice. And I guess that'd lead to argumentative shouting at the guy who doesn't properly understand pen and paper RPGs :smallbiggrin:

@Halvormerlinaky: I already called dibs on the pancreas! But since you've got a need for it, I'll trade you for a full set of intestines and teeth.

[Nikolai_II]

That's interesting. I'd just throw out alignment completely if they're getting rid of Law and Chaos.


Well, they aren't, according to the few MM entries from the D&D Games Day. (Those loose pages in the cabinets - IIRC Gnolls were Chaotic)

What they are (supposedly) doing is making most people simply not care about alignments. You have to make a conscious choice and an effort to be of any alignment at all, else you are unaligned.

So yes, Lawful AND Good means twice the work :smallbiggrin:

[OITS]

Rather obvious, why the masses do not like too much possible alignments. It is difficult to get used to what they all mean. So the core-players (most users at this forum are such core-players) which know, what lawful evil is love it, because it gives new opportunities. Furthermore, those who know the rules by heart also know that alignments do not determine your whole personality. I think the reduction to 3 (or 5) alignments is a huge step back in the evolution of DnD.

[The_Hunting_Enemy]

To me, "Unaligned" makes me think of the Mercenary who will work for whomever pays the most. Not because he is evil, but because it helps him survive the most. He is selfish, but not evil. Even a Good character can be selfish.
"Unaligned" is a good way to bring in characters who are neither good, evil, or "Strictly dead centre" Neutral. They may be prone to acts on either side, but do not do things that are strongly good or evil very often, if at all. Most commoners would be Unaligned.

The new system brings about a sense of "To be Good or Evil, you must actively try to do so" if it indeed has Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil still, then that means that you can be a good or evil person without helping puppies cross the road, or kicking little old ladies. Or was that the other way around? Ah well.

I feel that 4E is trying to make it more 'Freeform'. And while I like this concept, others, it seems, do not.

[Hippoboy]

i think lessening the alignments is very bad all they have to do is explain them better for the people who don't quite understand, if i could play the D&D (no one to play with) i wouldn't want less role-playing complexity. so just throw in lots of examples.

On a unrelated note dibs on his stomach (more food!)

[The_Hunting_Enemy]

Lessening the number of alignments does not restrict Roleplaying. It offers more freedom by having 'Wider ranges' for the alignment options.

Edit: Broader was the word I was looking for.

[Strengfellow]

Seems like the comic will, like many of the players refrain from switching over.

*SCHISM ALARM*

Unholy battles betwixt orthodox and reformed members of the cult of Gygax, RP clubs riven by internecine warfare, parties split in twain.

OH THE VOGONITY

Also bagsy sweetmeats, clavicle and spinal cord.

[Trazoi]

OH THE VOGONITY
Except you can't have Vogons in 4E if they abolish Lawful Evil... :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

[Strengfellow]

Except you can't have Vogons in 4E if they abolish Lawful Evil... :smallwink: :smallbiggrin:

And I quote:

They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy - not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without an order signed, in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. :smalltongue:

[Trazoi]

Douglas Adams doesn't exactly follow the same rules on alignment as D&D seems to do. :smallsmile: I mean I hardly see Vogons as Lawful Neutral.

Yes, I know this is off-topic, but frankly all the organ harvesting was starting to wear thin :smalltongue:

[Strengfellow]

Egad were all so stupid, Miko was obviously a Vogon.

Sorted.

[Krenn]

This isn't the place for such a discussion but I can see why they'd simplify the alignment system. The difference between "Chaotic Good" and "Neutral Good" is really pretty difficult to define.

not really.

Lawfull Good will refer a problem to higher authority and defer to their solution, if higher authority legitimatly has jurisdiction. When in doubt, Lawfull good will CREATE, and then continue to support over the long term, some system of higher authority.

Chaotic good will not refer a problem to higher authority. If higher authority gets involved anyway, Chaotic good will only defer to their solution if Chaotic good believes it is the correct one. Chaotic good does not care about jurisdiction. when in doubt, Chaotic good will attempt to ignore and/or subvert any and all higher authorities, and even take actions to prevent higher authority from ever arising in the future.

Neutral good will refer a problem to higher authority if higher authority is more capable of dealing with a problem than neutral good is. Neutral good will defer to higher authorities solution if the solution is correct, or if arguing about it is more trouble than it's worth. Neutral good would prefer that higher authority have a claim to jurisdiction that at least sounds credible, even if it really isn't. When in doubt, Neutral good will either support, ignore, or subvert higher authority, depending on what's most likely to guarantee a correct long-term solution.

[Krenn]

Well, the simplified alignment system does get rid of the "Paladin in a lawful evil society" problem. If he fights evil there in 3.5ed, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be chaotic. If he adheres to the law, he'll inevitably fall, since his acts will be evil.

Then again I'd rather change the Paladin class than throw out half of the alignment system.

Btw., has anyone claimed the eyes yet ?


Come on, I don't even play D&D and I know that isn't true. Lawful means having a strict code which you follow (or something like that). it does not mean you have to follow the law.

agreed. A Paladin in a lawfull evil society will see a complicated and treacherous system of order which is entirely focused towards the wrong end.

as A Paladin, he will consider it his duty to foster regime change, carefully removing the old goverment and replacing it with a new one, while keeping as many rules and traditions of the old goverment intact as can be morally justified. He will be very carefull about ensuring that his own forces operate under the laws of war, and will have very polite and cogent arguments about international law, and how this is a perfectly justified and neccesssary action by the repressed people of the nation in question, etc, etc.

Bonus points if you can force the old regime to resign, rather than just killing them in the end.

Switching a nation from lawfull evil to lawfull good isn't chaotic, it's good. you just have to be REALLY CAREFULL to avoid the sort of chaos that USUALLY accompanies revolutions.

What's the difference between a LG Paladin and a CG Ranger overthrowing a LE goverment?

The Paladin will discourage random acts of violence, and he leaves SOMETHING intact when he's done.

I couldn't find the exact quote, but (paraphrased) someone once said about Benjamin Franklin:

"People who believe that the system should merely be reformed are the last ones to support a revolution, but make the most effective revolutionaries once they agree to change their mind."

[Kish]

I like the sound of a Lawful/Chaotic axis only - good and evil are so subjective. But then I'd question why you need alignments at all.
In 0D&D, effectively, Lawful meant "Good" and Chaotic meant "Evil," down to the rulebook saying players should not play "Chaotic" characters. It was stupid beyond belief.

[Krenn]

Seems like the comic will, like many of the players refrain from switching over.

*SCHISM ALARM*

Unholy battles betwixt orthodox and reformed members of the cult of Gygax, RP clubs riven by internecine warfare, parties split in twain.

OH THE VOGONITY

Also bagsy sweetmeats, clavicle and spinal cord.

Myself, I prefer Apostolic Restored Gygax.

Oh, and I want the ribcage.

[TheCountAlucard]

I claim the fingerbones. You can have the hand.

[Strengfellow]

Myself, I prefer Apostolic Restored Gygax.

Apostolic Restored Gygax.... SPLITTER...PERSECUTE THE UNBELIEVER.

You with your furry D20's and third party source books.

May your children all play GURP's and like JarJar Binks. :smallyuk:

OK maybe that last one was a tad harsh. :smallbiggrin:

[Krenn]

Apostolic Restored Gygax.... SPLITTER...PERSECUTE THE UNBELIEVER.

You with your furry D20's and third party source books.

May your children all play GURP's and like JarJar Binks. :smallyuk:

OK maybe that last one was a tad harsh. :smallbiggrin:

actually, I was reffering to Hackmaster: the way Gygax MEANT to have written things!

As nearly as I can figure:

OD&D: Orthodox Gygax
1st ed. AD&D : Catholic Gygax
2nd ed. AD&D: Restoration Gygax
3rd ed. Ad&D: Reformed Gygax
3.5 ed Ad&d: Reformed Evangelical Gygax
4th Edition: Adventist Gygax

4th ed. Hackmaster : Apostolic Restored Gygax
5th ed. Hackmaster : Protestant Gygax

Lejendary Adventures : Presbyterian Gygax

Castles & Crusades : Episcopal Gygax

Gurps: Unitarian.

[lord of kobolds]

I'll take the spleen because it's an inherantly funny word.

i have dibs on all spleens:smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:

[Greg]

It's more a warhammer idea, but D&D has a long history of confusing Law=Good and Chaotic=Evil.
I think it has more to do with Elric of Melniboné.

[Nightmarenny]

*sigh* Rich has stated before he regretted the original conversion joke, and so it is VERY unlikely that OOTs will convert to 4e, yet about thrice a week one of these threads shows up. YOU get extra credit because there already is a OOTS 4e thread on the first page.

So, for making another 4e OOTS thread, you get your organs harvested.
Sigh. NONONO. He regreted begining the comic with a rules joke, stop freaking trumpeting this as proof that rich is against convertion.:smallfurious:

[ahammer]

actually, I was reffering to Hackmaster: the way Gygax MEANT to have written things!

As nearly as I can figure:

OD&D: Orthodox Gygax
1st ed. AD&D : Catholic Gygax
2nd ed. AD&D: Restoration Gygax
3rd ed. Ad&D: Reformed Gygax
3.5 ed Ad&d: Reformed Evangelical Gygax
4th Edition: Adventist Gygax

4th ed. Hackmaster : Apostolic Restored Gygax
5th ed. Hackmaster : Protestant Gygax

Lejendary Adventures : Presbyterian Gygax

Castles & Crusades : Episcopal Gygax

Gurps: Unitarian.

ha this is soo funny becuse of how gamer feel there v of the game is the best.

btw I get the skin (need more spell books) :Þ