Shar Excerpt wrote:
How much does the fluff in the campaign setting move away from the old alignment wheel?
-To stay consistent without explained change ("Shar smelled a rose, and suddenly grew a heart"), things would have to stay fairly similar to what they once were. Shar'll still be an evil deity.
-To stay consistent without explained change ("Shar smelled a rose, and suddenly grew a heart"), things would have to stay fairly similar to what they once were. Shar'll still be an evil deity.
Good and evil I wouldn't expect to change much. I'm just wondering if they go in the direction of describing things as nihilism and normal people who have surrendered to despair, as opposed to neutral evil.
Good and evil I wouldn't expect to change much. I'm just wondering if they go in the direction of describing things as nihilism and normal people who have surrendered to despair, as opposed to neutral evil.
-If, in their quest for nihilism, they start doing things like killing others, they're being evil, so...If, in their quest for nihilism, they shut themselves in completely, and no longer respond to their senses, they're not doing anything evil.
Shar is by all means evil, but the excerpt emphasizes nihilism and people who have given up hope instead of emphasizing neutral evil.
Its moving away from neutral evil and what it used to mean that I'm talking about in terms of Shar.
I was wondering how much was done in terms of 4E-style deemphasis of alignment in the new setting. Reading through the Shar Excerpt:
A few phrases bolded for emphasis. Some of what I read in this excerpt shows some shades of gray and nuanced concepts that tended to get lost in the whole Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil, ect. aspect of the old alignment paradigm.
How much does the fluff in the campaign setting move away from the old alignment wheel?
Well, that bit about Shar was always present in the setting. The average lay worshipper is probably a sad person headed down the wrong path--the clergy and those most involved with the church know the truth about (and embrace) Shar's evil, and commit evil deeds.
It's nothing new.
"Shar is followed by Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil parties."
"Shar is followed by Unaligned, Evil, and Chaotic Evil parties."
-Which, again, is nothing new. Substitute 'Unaligned' with 'Neutral'.
I was wondering how much was done in terms of 4E-style deemphasis of alignment in the new setting. Reading through the Shar Excerpt:
A few phrases bolded for emphasis. Some of what I read in this excerpt shows some shades of gray and nuanced concepts that tended to get lost in the whole Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil, ect. aspect of the old alignment paradigm.
How much does the fluff in the campaign setting move away from the old alignment wheel?
Alignment isn't talked about much at all, so in that sense it has moved pretty far. When alignment is known or more in the forefront (though it's a stretch to even say that), the descriptions usually indicate broadly the 4e basics and only get broader and less codified after that. Have you already read the side bar on Alignment vs. Personality in the 4e PH (pg. 19)? That is pretty clearly laid out, IMO, and seems to be the way things are described (if at all, due to the de-emphasis) in the FRCG.
You might compare, in Chapter 7, the Church of Bane and the Church of Shar. Bane's followers generally seek to replace authority while Shar's followers generally seek to undermine authority. Hierarchically, Bane's church has its strict rankings while Shar's church has the secretive, independent cell structure of old. However, both are considered "Evil" because, well, they're evil.
Moving over to the best source of alignment examples, Chapter 5, we have Lolth who is "Chaotic Evil." Yet she, like Bane, demands absolute fealty, has strict rules for her servitors, and plots and schemes. What makes her Chaotic Evil, it seems, is that she doesn't really care about anything but "revel[ing] in blood, hunger[ing] for sacrifice, and toy[ing] with worshipers and victims alike" (75). Umberlee, too, seems to have few goals beyond having people fear her.
That seems to be the crux between Evil and Chaotic Evil in the FR examples, just as it is described in core. Evil beings feel a right to hurt others if needed (for self-benefit or for XYZ goals); Chaotic Evil beings, if for some reason they stopped to comment, might ask, "Rights? What are those?" So as far as "Is there any indicative fluff?" Yes, a little. But beyond a basic nuance, the sky seems to be the limit.
In the Unaligned arena, Kelemvor is described with words and phrases such as firm, steady, earnest, and set above, and the doomguides are said to counsel with "a simple philosophy that with light there must be darkness, with day there must be night, with life there must be death" (75). In 3e terms, such descriptions might indicate LN or TN alignment. In 4e, because he makes no specific moral impact or judgment--despite having his brand of steadiness (L??) and his set above-ness (TN??)--he simply falls into "Unaligned." Tempus, who was CN in 3e, is also simply Unaligned.
In the Good camp, Chauntea, who in 3e was NG, is now Lawful Good because her fundamental shtick is the organized cultivation, taming, and domestication of nature for the benefit of mortals. Even so, she still has her true shaper worshipers who roam the wilderness. (As a side-note, they are probably Unaligned, as her clerics can be Lawful Good or Unaligned.)
Corellon's feywardens protect traditions and advise rulers, yet their deity has not been shifted to Lawful Good. Sune is Good AND fits the 3e CG (:w00t
mold precisely, discussed with words like tender, smitten, flirtatious, and informal. So again, as between Evil and Chaotic Evil, there is a single quality to differentiate between Good and Lawful Good...whether or not organized civilization is philosophically fundamental to the ideals espoused. Beyond that, flavor text seems wide open.The regional write-ups of Elturgard and Cormyr are both your typical 3e LG and 4e Lawful Good. The Dalelands, I think, were predominantly NG in 3e, and are described in 4e as "not a unified kingdom" and as having an "independent spirit"...or what sounds like Good. However, none of these areas is listed as having a "regional alignment" of any sort. It will be interesting to see if and how alignment is touched on in the FRPG.
Btw, is this at all what you were asking about?
You're missing my point. I'm talking about moving away from describing things in terms of the nine alignments(LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE) and moving towards discussing things in philosophical terms that have nothing to do with those alignments.
Shar is by all means evil, but the excerpt emphasizes nihilism and people who have given up hope instead of emphasizing neutral evil.
Its moving away from neutral evil and what it used to mean that I'm talking about in terms of Shar.
Um...I am confused did you read anything in previous edition about alignments(them being guidelines and all?). Anyway there is no need to because it has always been stated this about Shar's worshippers been a wide range of evil(CE, NE, LE) and and neutral alignments.
Are you asking if good alignment would be possible? I would say if you loose all hope and full of despair you are no longer good under the 4th edition description of Good or Lawful good.
Um...I am confused did you read anything in previous edition about alignments(them being guidelines and all?). Anyway there is no need to because it has always been stated this about Shar's worshippers been a wide range of evil(CE, NE, LE) and and neutral alignments.
Are you asking if good alignment would be possible? I would say if you loose all hope and full of despair you are no longer good under the 4th edition description of Good or Lawful good.
I wasn't really clear when I first posted this. What I am trying to say is complicated. Let me try again:
My point is about the loss of the Great Wheel in terms of alignment. The Great Wheel assumes that all nine alignments have an established place in the cosmos. The key word there is established. Unlike say Middle Earth, where Morgoth and Sauron tried to corrupt things for their own purposes in defiance of the natural order, the Great Wheel gives things like Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, and such a place in the scheme of things. This has an impact on the Realms, as gods have/had "portfolios" that included things like Strife, Murder, Tyranny and that it was their job/duty to promote these things. It kind of implies that Evil, and with it Strife, Murder, Tyranny and whatever have as much place in the scheme of things as Life, Truth and Civilization.
It isn't explicitly stated, but 4E has abandoned the Great Wheel and with it the assumption that the nine alignments(and Evil in particular) have an assigned and necessary role in the universe. 4E basically splits things between Civilization(which includes Unaligned) and Darkness. Darkness doesn't have a legitimate place on the wheel or in the universe. Its simply Darkness, and its out to get you.
I wasn't really clear when I first posted this. What I am trying to say is complicated. Let me try again:
My point is about the loss of the Great Wheel in terms of alignment. The Great Wheel assumes that all nine alignments have an established place in the cosmos. The key word there is established. Unlike say Middle Earth, where Morgoth and Sauron tried to corrupt things for their own purposes in defiance of the natural order, the Great Wheel gives things like Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, and such a place in the scheme of things. This has an impact on the Realms, as gods have/had "portfolios" that included things like Strife, Murder, Tyranny and that it was their job/duty to promote these things. It kind of implies that Evil, and with it Strife, Murder, Tyranny and whatever have as much place in the scheme of things as Life, Truth and Civilization.
It isn't explicitly stated, but 4E has abandoned the Great Wheel and with it the assumption that the nine alignments(and Evil in particular) have an assigned and necessary role in the universe. 4E basically splits things between Civilization(which includes Unaligned) and Darkness. Darkness doesn't have a legitimate place on the wheel or in the universe. Its simply Darkness, and its out to get you.
Yeah I see what you are saying now...that is tough question for two reasons I think...
1) It is a deeper subject then they wanted to explore in book meant for new players( they are trying to keep things simple)
2) Though I think they really left it up to the DM( and the players) to decide...in other words they avioded it but left it open for each group to go into if they choose too.
Though I think basicaly Civilzation vs Darkness interpetation is what is the standrad for 4th edition.