How is this going to affect, if at all, alignment in the Realms? I have a hard time imagining how it can adapt...
The Realms has already adapted, even if there are still rough patches.
Personally, though, the old alignment system has survived into my own 4E 1479 DR game, so I don't worry about it.
I, for one, thought it was a bloody brilliant way of looking at Alignment (even in reality!)...
I don't understand the need to scrap it.
-You can "throw out the rules" when it comes to character motivation, and whatever else. People act like they're going to act, regardless of how, by the rules, they are categorized. Just because the alignment rules in 4e D&D have changes doesn't mean that Princess Alusair is suddenly going to become a tyrannical despot for no reason, that the evil, Vampire Manshoon-clone is suddenly going to become a Cleric of Sune, and so on. As long as the character has motivation, they'll act as their motivation dictates.
Paladins are still going to be paragons of good and justice, regardless of whether or not they are, by the rules, considered 'Lawful Good', 'Good', or whatever else.
In my own realms, I've made a distinction. The title and role is based as much on the deity's alignment as the player's, if not moreso:
Paladin - LG, NG, CG deity, Player cannot be evil (or neutral with malevolent/counter-doctrinal tendencies)
Crusader - LN, TN, CN deity, Player can be any alignment as long as he/she does not possess counter-doctrinal tendencies
Blackguard - LE, NE, CE deity, Player cannot be good (or neutral with benevolent/counter-doctrinal tendencies)
I suppose that may seem cookie-cutter and trivial, but I'm not fond of the notion that Paladins can be evil (and no, I'm not a grognard, before someone steps in).
Vampire Manshoon-clone is suddenly going to become a Cleric of Sune, and so on.
Damn straight.
Although there are a few lovely benefits of such a position...
Although there are a few lovely benefits of such a position...
-Which position? Some are better than others...I think, anyway... :embarrass
that the evil, Vampire Manshoon-clone
Say what??? Manshoon is a VAMPIRE?
Oh, wait, don't tell me: Fzoul, did he reconstitute and get revenge on Bane for being the vehicle of his death?
LOL, things have certainly developed in the years since I last read about the realms!
Say what??? Manshoon is a VAMPIRE?
-No, no, no. Manshoon is not a vampire. One of his clones is a vampire. :P
-Seriously.
What? Did Lord Vader decide to replace the Jango Fett Model?
Sheesh, I'm confused...
His clones?
What? Did Lord Vader decide to replace the Jango Fett Model?
Sheesh, I'm confused...
I've always kept a large army of clones hidden away, so that should the impossible happen and I somehow perish, my soul simply goes to the next clone in line, I re-orient myself, and I return to dominating everything. At one point, a certain someone thought it would be funny if my clones all activated at once, which they did, and some tension appeared. Three clones in particular stand out to those aware: my vampiric self (also known as Orbakh) who became master of the Night Masks, my devoted self who rented out one of Halaster's rooms in Undermountain, and my conservative self who returned to Zhentil Keep and the Zhentarim.
[And while it might appear to some that only those three survived, one of which is my vampiric incarnation and the one the 4E Realms is most familiar with, that's simply not true. The "Manshoon Wars", as it is known, was mere soul-searching. I'm still the Manshoon I've always been, and I still have thousands of clones safely tucked away
]Plus, with Fzoul serving as Bane's footstool, the Zhentarim are once again all mine.:evillaugh
I finally found out the forums were reopened and looking forward to this thread, (and the one about Kara Tur that I can no longer find...)
But I'm still Confused... :P
In Any event:
FREE FZOUL!
FREE FZOUL!
FREE FZOUL!
Fzoul is as free as he ever was. Which is to say, he's still a slave to Bane's will. Only difference is he's been upgraded from Chief Doormat to Almighty Footrest. Which leaves the Zhentarim in my hands once again! (how I wish I still had the maniacal laughing smilie to use).
So that means you are now in league with the Dark Sun.
Because my OUR Master(WITH ME BEING HIS #1 AND YOU BEING HIS #2.:p) now rules the Zhents with an Iron Fist!
DEATH TO BANE!
So that means you are now in league with the Dark Sun.
DEATH TO BANE!
I don't serve Cyric (at least, not with the directness and zeal with which you do). I simply work with him. He's your master, and my ally. Plus, a fair minority of Zhentarim still honor Bane. You might want to give me a few suggestions on how to eliminate them if you really want Cyric as our chief patron deity.
I like less alignments; heck, I'd happily settle with only three - good, evil and unaligned myself.
So that means you are now in league with the Dark Sun.
DEATH TO BANE!
I don't serve Cyric (at least, not with the directness and zeal with which you do). I simply work with him. He's your master, and my ally. Plus, a fair minority of Zhentarim still honor Bane. You might want to give me a few suggestions on how to eliminate them if you really want Cyric as our chief patron deity.
A fair weather follower.:rollseyes:
See I have been presecuted on the Forums for my Zeal.
Dont you worry I have a scheme brewing for those Banites.
I may have to include you in it also now.
DEATH TO BANE AND HIS BANITES!!!!:D
I like less alignments; heck, I'd happily settle with only three - good, evil and unaligned myself.
Now on topic.
I agree with this.:D
A fair weather follower.:rollseyes:
Do you know how many clones I have? Statistically speaking, I'll have several hundred monotheists (and many more polytheists or non-religious) should my current form(s) meet with an untimely tragedy (i.e. the TSR "evil must suck" policy returns). Going by that, at least one of my incarnations will be a Cyricist. Just not this one.
I like less alignments; heck, I'd happily settle with only three - good, evil and unaligned myself.
Personally, I love the old nine-alignment system. But I know many, if not most, were not as fond. Especially those who straightjacketed (but honestly, they have no one to blame but their DMs for sticking to the letter).
Going by that, at least one of my incarnations will be a Cyricist. Just not this one.
Then that one needs to show up with a quickness!:razz:
Then that one needs to show up with a quickness!:razz:
I have no intentions of meeting with an untimely demise anytime soon, especially now that my might is officially recognized as the greatest non-cheesy power in the entire world (Szass Tam and Terpenzi can go kiss Talona's nethers). So you'll just have to wait a few centuries. However, now that I think about it, Ed is writing his next El book. If Elminster is truly going to die (not bloody likely), then it only makes sense that it would be at my hands. The Old Guard gets to show their stuff in the battle that every Ed fan has been yearning for, and I finally send the Nemesis to his grave. I might be blown to bits, but I'll be back at full strength 2.1 seconds later, so it's no skin off my vampiric arse.
"Great Bishamonten, God of War! Grant me the strength to strike down my Nemesis!"
Cookie for those of you out there who recognize the reference.
The old alignment system and the tendency toward forced symmetry are two things I don't miss.
Bel
I never looked at it as forced, just as guidelines. Symmetry is the way of the universe, it was too emphasized sometimes, agreed, it had to be hidden, not obvious.. At least before you had four ''poles'' now you have good that is law and chaos that is evil. That's just wrong.
I wish they had completely dropped the 'law' and 'chaos' elements - they never made any sense to me whatsoever. Mind you, I wish they'd never been introduced in the first place. People are usually willing to bend some laws/rules more than others and very few (sane) people wouldn't want any laws/rules whatsoever.
I am aware that they are a form of guidelines but as someone who liked playing paladins, I found it an unnecessary nuisance. Yes, I'm biased. ;)
I never looked at as forced, just as guidelines. Symetry is the way of the universe, it was too emphasized sometimes, agreed, it had to be hidden, not obvious.
My thoughts exactly. Hence my use of "straightjacketed". When I hear people complain about the old alignment system being too strict (not that anyone here is doing that, but elsewhere), I often wonder "Isn't your DM responsible for how alignment's handled? Maybe it's your DM being too strict, and not the system itself."
FR Alignment is definitely something I kept from 3rd Edition, it is much more specefic if you ask me. Also, alignment changes are easier within the older system.
I miss True Neutral
I miss Chaotic Stupid!
That was/is my favorite alignment.
Oh well I guess I will be abusing Unaligned now...
Aww man they got rid of chaotic stupid? I missed that! Those ********!!!
and youre a Warlock? Interesting... I would of expected someting Divine, being the Chosen of Cyric Corellon Curellon. We should make the rest of the gang take that test too, if they havnt already. im interested to see what everyone else comes out as.
Taken it before, ages ago. I'm a Swordmage.
4e alignment is stupid and offensive. I put Chaotic Good on my character sheets anyway and just thumb my nose at it. Chaos doesn't play by the rules anyway. 
Come to think of it, all three active characters I've got in PbPs are CG right now. Mind you, one of them is a 3.5 character, a drow cleric of Corellon Larethian, but the other two are 4e and CG anyway. :P
I seem to be in the minority for liking the new alignment system. I always thought alignment was like a straight-jacket. The DM always sayingyou're this alignment you have to do this. I think they should of got rid of lawful good too. I would be happy with just good, evil, and unaligned. I never liked alignment much anyway, the way I see it, it's all role-play.
That's a problem with really crappy DMs, not alignment.
Craptacular...
I love the protection from evil/good/law/chaos spells (and their FR wall variants). One of the best low level buff in pre 4E D&D.
I also liked the concept that the philosophies of alignment actually come from planar sources and can be embodied by their habitants.
Detect evil did prove to be a little troublesome in high intrigue games and seeing it go is one of the few reasons I might get over the removal of the alignment spells.
I think my biggest beef was how certain classes were "restricted" to be certain alignemnts (Barbarian, Crusader, Knight, Paladin, etc...) and this really conflicted with great multi-classing components of 3e. The way 4e is now, my paladin of Torm can take barbarian multi-classing feats and rage (which really and easily demonstrates his passion in battle against evil).
Besides, I believe one of the main reasons the alignment system was changed is because they've scrapped alignment-based powers. I for one and very, very, happy about this. It keeps a DM from screwing over alignment-required PCs like paladins who can only smite evil. So constructs are no longer my bane when playing a paladin, lol.
I think a limited use for alignemnts in powres, curses, etc would be useful.
An artifact that can only be wielded by good, a ritual that onyl affects evil opponents, annite that corrupts people into evil, etc.
Detect evil/good may be less desireable, as they can ruin certain plot surprises by revelaing alliances to easily, but sometimes alignment does have a function, specifically when it deals with great power, morality, and divine sanction.
However, I would personally limit it to good vs. evil. Law vs chaos is harder to visualize.
Gomez
However, I would personally limit it to good vs. evil. Law vs chaos is harder to visualize.
Which is kind of weird since in most ancient mythologies the conflict between law vs. chaos takes a very central position (especially in Ancient Egypt, Greek and Babylonian mythology)*. Mind you, the chaos mentioned in this mythology is the type of destructive chaos which the gods ordered to create the world. It is chaos on a grand scale comparable to the Elemantal Chaos, Primordial and Abyss of 4E core campaign. It has nothing to do with the more mundane "chaos" of being anti-authority or a trickster-type of figure. The 4E alignment tried to similate this by turning chaotic good into Good, chaotic neutral into Unaligned and specifically keeping Chaotic Evil.
Note that the alignment of 3E was not a straightjacket because it closely defined more alignments. It was a straightjacket because many character options and spells reacted upon that alignment and hence gave it a game mechanical impact beyond RPing your character.
Personally I prefer the new system, but as long as alignment has no impact beyond RPing, I wouldn't object to a game using the old alignments.
* The RP game Scion of White Wolf is based completely on said conflict.
Well, I am unsure if 'total destruction' is an accurate definition of 'chaos'. I would likely more easily define it as a destructive form of evil. So it would still be good vs evil, even if it is 'lawful' good vs 'chaotic' evil.
I would like an evil artifact that wrecks good characters with pains of necrotic energy, or a good artifact that burns evil characters with holy radiance. Or perhaps a ritual that awards out craetures of a certain alignement. As long as the use of it is dramatic enough, it would not be in the way.
Gomez
If I recall correctly, the original D&D alignment system had Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. There were no explicitly named Good or Evil.
Yes, but that is less easy to visualize unless you define chaos in what we now know as chaotic evil and lawful in what we now know as lawful good.
So iw oudl pick evil vs. good instead and leave it at that.
Except that in mythology Evil deities (e.g. Set and Sebek) would ally with the "good" guys against said chaos.
The fact is that the old D&D alignment system is way too simplistic. I feel that the 3E version is a bit too complicated since the addition of the neutral component were very hard to adjucate. Hence my preference for the current system.
I guess alot of folks haven't read any of the works of Michael Moorcock, whence alot of the direct influence of the law vs. chaos conflict came into D&D. There, good or evil are all grey; what's good to you is easily evil to someone else, because they have different customs/beliefs/goals/desires/are a different species, and vice versa. There's nothing concrete there to build a foundation on.
Law and Chaos, however, have concrete goals and aims. Law seeks stability, reliability, dependability. Chaos seeks freedom, choices, options. Of course, Pure Law will impose total conformity and sterility; there's an encounter in a plane of Pure Law where there is nothing but a flat grey surface. Life requires growth and change, both of which contradict Pure Law. Meanwhile, Pure Chaos will have constant neverending change, with everything being destroyed, warped, and recreated at utter random.
Neither works too well for mortals in the long run, but there is the Cosmic Balance, which is by far the hardest path to walk; all but the greatest heroes who seek it end up falling towards law or chaos at some point.