Okay 4E: What doesn't suck?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:32 am

Hmm, I guess you're right there. I mean, I made the first couple of levels worth of stuff for a Mind Flayer playable (including the basic race), and that took what, an hour? But that doesn't include rambling bullshit, "how to build" or the stuff after level... 3-ish. It did include a sample character: the one I was playing. Unlike 3E, for 4E I certainly couldn't make shit up for fun.

I even included an alternate loot system: instead of having to play along with treasure packages and all that bullshit, they can develop tyranid-style bio-morphs, which largely function the same (they have levels, bonuses and random special abilities).

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:02 pm

You know, this thread would be so much better if one of the dumbfuck squad members was here to whine and flail about it.

So where's all the 4.Fails? I know they're inbreeding on WotC.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:03 pm

Okay, here's one big improvement about 4th Edition.

They neutered that retarded alignment system and made it more about culture than some objective judgement about peoples' actions while also uncoupling it from mechanical effects.

3rd Edition's alignment problems were so bad that to this day I can't find someone who can satisfactorily:

Tell me the difference between neutral good and chaotic good. Lawful good is apparently enlightened deontology and neutral good is apparently utilitarianism.
Tell me the difference between true neutral and chaotic neutral.
Tell me the difference between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil.
Tell me the difference between lawful evil and neutral evil.
Tell me the difference between neutral evil and chaotic evil. Apparently chaotic evil is like neutral evil but with a higher body count.

Given all of these problems, any neutering of the alignment system would've been a big improvement, though if 4th Edition really wanted to go the extra mile it would've gotten rid of the system altogether or invent one that made sense.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:07 pm

By the way, that's not snark.

Alignment was so godawful and contrived and worthless in 3rd Edition that the fact that it's pretty much useless in 4th Edition is an improvement.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:04 pm

That doesn't seem like a point in 4th's favor.

'They have less alignments for your to misunderstand'.

Thanks. Umm. That made it umm... I don't care?

-Crissa

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:42 pm

But 3E's godawful alignment system is so bad that it's perversely an improvement.

It's like if someone came up to you and gave you a deal of sawing off your arm and cauterizing it with a hot iron for twenty-five dollars. If you have gangrene in the middle of the desert, that's a bargain.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:48 pm

As for alignments, I'm going to have to agree with Lago in that a lot 4E's alignment is slightly more logical. Unaligned is a really nice alignment, although I think they should have differeniated Unaligned from Neutral (which implies an honest to boccob concern for the Balance). I also would have preferred ditching the law/chaos descriptors and just having Good, Evil, Neutral, and Unaligned.

But Good, Lawful Good, Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil are still far better than (Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) Good, (Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) Evil, and (Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic) Neutral, especially when at least half of those terms have effectly no meaning whatsoever (or have so many contradictory meanings that they effectively have no meaning).

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:16 pm

Alignment in 4e sucks, but alignment in 3e also sucks. The best part about alignment in 3e is that you can make those 3x3 posters that have the alignments listed and characters/people that correspond to them.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Neutral as distinct from unaligned is a stupid alignment.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:24 am

I never understood Wotc's argument and I don't understand your's Lago.

Neutral is just the degree between Lawful and Chaotic. Consider it a 45 degree angle, accepts and follows codes about half as much as a Lawful person would and breaks codes and is a free-r spirit about half as much as a Chaotic person would.

Neutral just recognizes that there are degrees to Good and Evil and Lawful and Chaotic. I mean they could have had extra alignments to fit more degrees in such as between Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil.

Anyway I'm not saying that the alignment system is perfect, but I don't understand others' problems with the ideas behind the alignments themselves.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:15 am

bill wrote:Neutral is just the degree between Lawful and Chaotic. Consider it a 45 degree angle, accepts and follows codes about half as much as a Lawful person would and breaks codes and is a free-r spirit about half as much as a Chaotic person would.

That's stupid and you should feel stupid. You can't break codes more or less. You either stick to them or you don't. That's what codes are. You don't spend more less of your day murdering innocent people, you either do it or you do not do it. If someone spent half as much of their day raping people you wouldn't consider them to be ambiguous on the issue of rape, nor would you consider them a possible ally in your ant-rape agenda. They frankly wouldn't look damn bit different to you than someone who spent twice as much of their time raping. Frankly, even a very dedicated rapist is going to spend very little of their actual time raping people.

There are different moral and philosophical systems. But they aren't on a fucking sliding scale. There are not points that are between one system and another system. Different people consider different things acceptable and praiseworthy, and they are just different. Some systems consider it a moral problem for dudes to sleep with other dudes or for people to eat dogs. Other systems don't have a problem with that stuff. And the grab bag of different things you could take offense to or not makes any moral compass that shares some things in common with two different opposing philosophies to very likely share very little with another that shares things in common with the same philosophies.

So in short, if "Chaotic Good" is a philosophy and "Lawful Good" is another philosophy, then you fucking can't just say that "Neutral Good" is a philosophy that happens to take some things from CG and some things from LG. Because that's a statement that describes an infinite number of philosophies, the vast majority of which share no more in common with each other than they do with LG or CG.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:52 am

Psychic Robot wrote:The best part about alignment in 3e is that you can make those 3x3 posters that have the alignments listed and characters/people that correspond to them.

I agree with you here, even though I don't like agreeing with you.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:53 am

Okay...so as far as alignments go, I think we can pretty much say the idea of "neutral" is mostly bullshit. But I can actually make cases for the extremes.

So would an alignment system of "LG, CG, LE, CE, and don't-give-a-shit" work for people?

LG: I believe in charity and doing good things for people, and obeying the law.
CG: I believe in charity and doing good things for people, but fuck your law, because all it does it get in the way.
LE: Hey! I like the law! Mainly because it lets me indulge my selfishness when I manipulate it. So obey the law or I turn you over to the inquisitors.
CE: I will kill all of you and wear your heads for hats.

Everybody else is pretty much "I'm in it for me, but I believe in going along to get along". About like 90-99% of humanity (depending on your level of cynicism).

Is that feasible?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:06 am

That makes no goddamn sense. How is LG and CG different from each other? If a CG characters ends up in Star Trek or Shangri-La, are they going to go around pissing on laws because they don't like them? How would that make them good? And if the laws that they oppose are bad, then how can a LG justify upholding them?

How was your example of LE different from CE? Drow have a byzantine system of laws that let the people in power do whatever the fuck they like, but they're chaotic evil. Similarly, Nazis want to kill people the don't like and put them in ovens, but they had a system of organization and documentation that people actually praise.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:14 am

PoliteNewb:

Your "Chaotic Good" guy evidently does the right thing regardless of what society expects from him. That doesn't need to be "chaotic" and can shortened to just Good.

Lawful Good doesn't make sense. If he always does what's right, he's just Good. People who act decently most of the time but cave to peer pressure or social threats aren't Good, they're Unaligned. Someone who always does what society expects form him, regardless of whether it's in his personal interest AND whether it measures up to "divine law" might be Lawful, so that's our second alignment.

Lawful Evil doesn't work either. Someone who is selfish but well-behaved is Unaligned. Someone who reliably follows rules even against his interest is Lawful.

And Chaotic Evil can now be shortened simply to evil.

That gives us a condensed list of four alignments: Good, Lawful, Evil, and Unaligned.

If we were willing to tip a few more sacred cows, we could name them Moral, Ethical, Social, and Antisocial.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:05 am

So, is the Barbarian now Lawful 'cause he does what his society expects of him?

What's the Druid that believed in Balance now? Lawful?

The Monk was lawful because... Well, I didn't really understand why.

-Crissa

PS: Apparently someone's Paladin doesn't believe the laws have a higher good reason for them, and someone's Ranger doesn't believe stealing food for the poor is a higher calling than the law which... Well, however it was formed.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:25 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That makes no goddamn sense. How is LG and CG different from each other? If a CG characters ends up in Star Trek or Shangri-La, are they going to go around pissing on laws because they don't like them? How would that make them good?

How does it make them bad? You yourself point out a few sentences later that laws are not necessarily good. If they end up someplace, they act in an altruistic fashion, regardless of what the law says. That means if the law says you need permits or whatever to adopt a homeless girl, they adopt the girl anyway. If the law says armed self defense is illegal, that won't stop them from shooting a villain if he needs shooting.

CG are libertarian altruists.

And if the laws that they oppose are bad, then how can a LG justify upholding them?

They can't...they believe that orderly systems and the concept of "law and order" generally support good in theory, and it is their job to make sure it does in practice. The difference between LG and CG is whether or not they feel it necessary to have consensus on the best way to help people.

How was your example of LE different from CE? Drow have a byzantine system of laws that let the people in power do whatever the fuck they like, but they're chaotic evil. Similarly, Nazis want to kill people the don't like and put them in ovens, but they had a system of organization and documentation that people actually praise.

Drow are not CE, and never have been. Likewise, the Nazis were LE. LE people uphold the law mainly because the law is on their side, but if someone can out-lawyer them, they admit that they lose...mainly because if they break the social contract it lets everybody else do the same, and they don't feel that's in their best interest.
LE tries to pervert law to selfish ends. CE literally doesn't give a fuck about laws, and will at most pay lip service to them. Again...it's about whether or not you feel you need consensus to accomplish evil ends.

Boolean:

Your dichotomy makes some sense, and upon reflection I realize mine was missing a few. Lawful (by itself) makes sense; that's somebody who trusts laws and authority more than individualism, and doesn't really care what the end results are (or doesn't trust themselves to define "good" and "evil"). Similarly, I suppose one could have simple Chaotic alignment, who upholds personal freedom as the only important thing.

I'm not personally okay with just letting selfish and evil be equivalent because I feel that cheapens the concept of evil. I know some people believe in "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"...I don't.

If the Nazis are burning jews, there are people who think that's awesome (evil) and people who think that's despicable and work against it (good). And there are some who think it doesn't affect them, or who may be uncomfortable but not enough to actually do something about it...those would be the unaligned (neutral if you like that term, which I don't).

In the above example, LG would be the sort to do lawful protest or try to stop the killing from within the system, while CG are the kind who start revolutions or jailbreaks. But I guess I'll be honest and say I dont know how to classify the ones who simply hide jews in the cellar and don't turn them in. Maybe just good?

All right, maybe alignment is just a giant clusterfuck.

Crissa:

Barbarians aren't necessarily lawful or chaotic, in my opinion. You'll have freewheeling "do what I want" barbarians like Conan, and you'll have noble savage tribal champion sorts.

Monks being lawful likewise makes no sense at all. Lawful /= disciplined.

violence in the media · Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:30 am

PoliteNewb wrote:
CG are libertarian altruists.

That's a lie--there is no such thing as an altruistic libertarian.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:42 am

How does it make them bad? You yourself point out a few sentences later that laws are not necessarily good. If they end up someplace, they act in an altruistic fashion, regardless of what the law says. That means if the law says you need permits or whatever to adopt a homeless girl, they adopt the girl anyway. If the law says armed self defense is illegal, that won't stop them from shooting a villain if he needs shooting.

So how does breaking the law to adopt a homeless girl good? If the law is supposed to do things like ensure that she goes to school and gets immunized and all that happy shit, how is the character circumventing said law supposed to be good? He's intentionally putting said girl in danger because he doesn't want to follow the law, which on no planet can be considered good. That would be like shooting someone in the stomach to prevent them from shoplifting a hot dog. If the law is just there to be an impediment towards people helping others, then what justification does a lawful good person have for upholding it?

The difference between LG and CG is whether or not they feel it necessary to have consensus on the best way to help people.

That's fucking insane. That sounds like a dictatorship to me if someone gets to enforce their will without regards to what others want.

LE people uphold the law mainly because the law is on their side, but if someone can out-lawyer them, they admit that they lose...mainly because if they break the social contract it lets everybody else do the same, and they don't feel that's in their best interest.
LE tries to pervert law to selfish ends. CE literally doesn't give a fuck about laws, and will at most pay lip service to them. Again...it's about whether or not you feel you need consensus to accomplish evil ends.

The Nazis were lawful? You have to be out of your mind. First of all, the ascension of Nazis was one of the most nakedly law-breaking coups ever conceived. Second of all, if you can just change the laws at your whim to include things like 'killing people who don't consent to be killed', what is the point of following laws? They broke many laws just to get into power and one they were there imposed their will on their victims. How is that different from a CE person?

Law when it comes to evil is a completely stupid distinction. Evil people with that power will change the law to whatever they feel like, no matter who they are. The only difference in this game that it seems that CE do evil even when it's obviously detrimental to them.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:20 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So how does breaking the law to adopt a homeless girl good? If the law is supposed to do things like ensure that she goes to school and gets immunized and all that happy shit, how is the character circumventing said law supposed to be good? He's intentionally putting said girl in danger because he doesn't want to follow the law, which on no planet can be considered good.

That's your opinion...one which considers making her go to school and getting immunized and all that happy shit to be good. Another person might consider giving her a home to live in, a chance to decide for herself what she wants to do with her life, and so forth to be good. That person would likely be of the opinion that putting her into an orphanage or foster care to be wrong.

That's the whole point; people have different opinions of what constitutes good...because altruism can take many forms, and people have different opinions on how to go about helping folks.

That's fucking insane. That sounds like a dictatorship to me if someone gets to enforce their will without regards to what others want.

How is that a dictatorship? Someone wanting to enforce their will so far as it involves themselves and their immediate surroundings has no interest in the state of affairs 3 states over. He doesn't care what the law there says, as it doesn't affect him, and he has no agenda with those folks.
Someone who believes that every person gets to "enforce their will" regarding personal actions and choices is chaotic.

The Nazis were lawful? You have to be out of your mind. First of all, the ascension of Nazis was one of the most nakedly law-breaking coups ever conceived.

While I freely admit the possibility I could be mistaken (my knowledge of the Nazi rise to power is limited to high school history and wikipedia), I think the Nazi ascension made considerable use of the machinery of government. And since numerous ascensions to power involve simply shooting all your opponents in the face, I fail to see how it could be one of the most nakedly lawbreaking.

Second of all, if you can just change the laws at your whim to include things like 'killing people who don't consent to be killed', what is the point of following laws?

The point is you can claim everybody (or most people) agree with you about changing/following those laws, and in some cases you're right. When you have a lot of people on your side, it's easier to enforce those laws. The whole point of laws is to try to reach consensus on what people should do. Good people want laws to benefit everybody as fairly as possible, evil people want laws to benefit them personally (and quitely likely others incidentally) as much as possible.

People and governments change laws all the time...does the fact that laws can be changed, amended, repealed and so forth make law meaningless?

They broke many laws just to get into power and one they were there imposed their will on their victims. How is that different from a CE person?

The main difference is that they did it with massive support, rather than as individual acts. And when they took power, they used the machinery of law and government to enforce their will...which is why people mostly went along.

Law when it comes to evil is a completely stupid distinction. Evil people with that power will change the law to whatever they feel like, no matter who they are.

Except that some evil people consider acquiring power and changing the law to be a worthwhile way of accomplishing their goals...and some evil people don't. Some feel it's best to just do what you want and try not to get caught. This is the difference between politicians and bank robbers.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:21 am

violence in the media wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:
CG are libertarian altruists.
That's a lie--there is no such thing as an altruistic libertarian.

Well, this is a fantasy game...

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:09 am

This discussion really just goes to prove Lago's point.

3e alignments were so bad that we are still arguing over what they should mean on a thread for pointing out (and debating) the few improvements in 4e

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:19 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:This discussion really just goes to prove Lago's point.

3e alignments were so bad that we are still arguing over what they should mean on a thread for pointing out (and debating) the few improvements in 4e

Point taken. I'll stop derailing; Lago, if you want to continue, we can hash this out in another thread.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:56 am

As a side note, many Chaotic characters are actually Lawful in 3e. Take a Chaotic Evil cleric of Murderhobo. Because the cleric is following his god's commands and precepts, he is a) subservient to a higher power, and b) bound to a code of ethics. And thus while he's off killing children and wenches and town guards, dancing with glee in the fountains of blood, he's being Lawful, not Chaotic. Because Murderhobo wills it.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:07 am

On that note, if Law implies doing as you're told by a higher power, then what the hell are Chaotic Clerics (like, of Chaotic gods) supposed to do? Would the deity like them more if they did as they were told (by the deity), thus meaning all Clerics should be Lawful? Or do Chaotic deities only respect clerics who say "Go fuck yourself" and do their own thing?