Hm reminds me of a discussion I had recently. In earlier editions, actions determined alignment. In 4.0 Intent determined alignment. The 4.0 alignments for PC's are as follows, Lawful Good, Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil.
LG is now (roughly), doing the right thing, for the betterment of society
G is now roughly, Doing what is right because its the right thing to do.
E is Doing something for yourself.
CE is doing something to harm others.
All four might save the world from Asmodius taking over, but all 4 would have differing intents.
LG - The people of the world need protecting, and I am the hero to protect them.
G - The world is a good place, and needs protecting, even if people die, it needs saved.
E - I have no other worlds to go to, so I must save this one to survive.
CE - If I don't save this world, someone else will rule it and make it harder for me to be the one to destroy it, and all reality with it.
lots lacking if those are it. What about someone that believes good & evil should be balanced and they try to help maintain that balance? no more neutral of any kind?
0
steppenkatMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
This won't happen because Alignment doesn't affect game mechanics in 4e, unlike 3.5.
Characters: - Titania Silverblade, the Iron Rose of Myth Drannor (Lvl 60 GWF, Destroyer) - Gwyneth, the Cowardly Cat Burglar Drowling (Lvl 60 TR, Saboteur) - Lady Rowanne Firehair, Heartwarder of Sune (Lvl 33 DC) - Satella, Sensate (LvL 44 CW, Renegade, Non-Active)
My question on alignment centers around the idea that my character has no choice but to kill, for instance, Nashers. Couldn't there be options to side with them and change the quest? Maybe talk to some of them and ask why he's doing this? Get a a cool side quest because of it? (Maybe this happens later in-game, and I hope so).
It's cool and all, but imagine how difficult this'd be to create in a multiplayer environment.
I would be more interested in more Gods available; both my TR & my CW feel a bit constrained by the options we're given. Selune works for my TR, but none of the options "feel right" for my CW, who is far more neutral & mercenary in his outlook than any of the current available deities imply. Waukeen, for example, might work OK.
Waukeen's dead, man And from what I hear, lots of 3e gods are dead. you can go with Tymore for sth neutral... Though wouldn't Oghma make sense for the CW?
lots lacking if those are it. What about someone that believes good & evil should be balanced and they try to help maintain that balance? no more neutral of any kind?
I've got to say, that motivation for "neutral" always felt fake and unnatural to me. That philosophy just doesn't hold up. Though in the 4e system, that could be presented as LG, since you'd be doing what you think is right for the good of all.
I've got to say, that motivation for "neutral" always felt fake and unnatural to me. That philosophy just doesn't hold up. Though in the 4e system, that could be presented as LG, since you'd be doing what you think is right for the good of all.
I see what you're saying. I was just using that as an example because I thought it'd show the point more, like a druid that sees the need for the balance in old D&D versions. I would usually consider myself like chaotic neutral as I would usually do the right thing 99% of the time but occasionally if the payoff was big enough I'd do something evil in PnP, like being the hero all the time but then you go ahead and steal some great item when you know that you can't be caught. I guess that'd just fall under Evil now.
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
lots lacking if those are it. What about someone that believes good & evil should be balanced and they try to help maintain that balance? no more neutral of any kind?
4E also has "Unaligned". So basically neutral, and other philosophies not directly related to good vs evil.
I see what you're saying. I was just using that as an example because I thought it'd show the point more, like a druid that sees the need for the balance in old D&D versions. I would usually consider myself like chaotic neutral as I would usually do the right thing 99% of the time but occasionally if the payoff was big enough I'd do something evil in PnP, like being the hero all the time but then you go ahead and steal some great item when you know that you can't be caught. I guess that'd just fall under Evil now.
Why does any of that need an alignment label? What does that add to the game?
4E also has "Unaligned". So basically neutral, and other philosophies not directly related to good vs evil.
Why does any of that need an alignment label? What does that add to the game?
It can add quite a lot to roleplay and to Foundry quests if they ever enable alignment to influence things. I see several requests in the "future classes" threads for paladins, well how do you have paladins without some form of alignment enforcement unless this is just totally going to be a hack/slash mmo where choices/actions never matter to anything. That's just how I see it anyway..
also, even in other mmo's that don't have alignment there are usually realms and factions and things of that nature to make choices matter. In a D&D mmo it seems like alignment would have to play a part at some point no matter if it's 4.0 or any other version.
0
quorforgedMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
It can add quite a lot to roleplay and to Foundry quests if they ever enable alignment to influence things.
Why should "alignment" influence anything?
Why not simply have character choices and decisions influence things?
During an adventure, why is "you decided to write Good on your sheet, therefore you do the good thing" better than "do you decide to do the good thing?"
I see several requests in the "future classes" threads for paladins, well how do you have paladins without some form of alignment enforcement unless this is just totally going to be a hack/slash mmo where choices/actions never matter to anything. That's just how I see it anyway..
Why should it be enforced mechanically? Let people roleplay what they want.
And lack of alignment doesn't mean choices/actions don't matter. You can have choices/actions matter without alignment. Alignment doesn't enable anything, it just gets in the way.
also, even in other mmo's that don't have alignment there are usually realms and factions and things of that nature to make choices matter. In a D&D mmo it seems like alignment would have to play a part at some point no matter if it's 4.0 or any other version.
I believe there will be factions for the Gauntlgrym content.
If anything they should add the other Greater Deities, especially Shar. We have Amulets of Shar, you can be a Shadovar(shar is the pimary Deity) if the Origins/Deity is truly fluff options then it shouldn't matter if someone worships a deity like that or not. Also you got Scourge Warlock with Hellbringer Paragon Path(Infernal) so Asmodeus should be added for those wishing to delve into my RP.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
lurchusaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
You don't need to add alignments. 99% of the people playing MMORPG's are Lawful Evil (Will follow the law, but are selfish) or Neutral Evil (Totally out for themselves, and everybody else can go to hell), so just assume that alignment and create your Foundry quests accordingly.
As for that remaining 1%... well they are just griefing trolls, who tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel (aka, Chaotic Evil)
Why not simply have character choices and decisions influence things?
During an adventure, why is "you decided to write Good on your sheet, therefore you do the good thing" better than "do you decide to do the good thing?"
Why should it be enforced mechanically? Let people roleplay what they want.
And lack of alignment doesn't mean choices/actions don't matter. You can have choices/actions matter without alignment. Alignment doesn't enable anything, it just gets in the way.
I believe there will be factions for the Gauntlgrym content.
that's all true that they can just make choices matter. Why have deity choices at all though? It seems like a total waste if it's not going to be put to a use. You mean they added the deity selections and descriptions just for in game titles? that just doesn't add up, doesn't seem like they'd spend time on that with so much else needing work, unless it was going to matter. as far as why have it enforced? there is no reason to have a paladin if they can then follow evil quest lines etc so if not going to enforce it then why even add it? and maybe they never will.
Adding alignment would not make it checkable in by the the tools in the Foundry. We already have race, class, gender and diety, and there's no way to check for those.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
sasheriaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 1Arc User
edited May 2013
Alignments are guideline. Originally to help a player to play their character. A "true" alignment system in the game would be pretty hard to pull off. UO try this a while back and it was..... interesting.
that's all true that they can just make choices matter. Why have deity choices at all though? It seems like a total waste if it's not going to be put to a use. You mean they added the deity selections and descriptions just for in game titles?
I know I've seen diety-based options in dialog. Not sure about background-based, but I could see adding that.
Background fluff, for roleplaying decisions is fine. That's useful. Alignment is not.
as far as why have it enforced? there is no reason to have a paladin if they can then follow evil quest lines etc so if not going to enforce it then why even add it? and maybe they never will.
First off, Paladins in 4E aren't alignment restricted. Evil gods can have Evil Paladins (assuming the DM permits an Evil PC, of course).
But I advocate for no alignment at all, which means your concen wouldn't apply. There wouldn't be "good" paths or "evil" paths. There'd just be "choices", and it would be up to the player to decide. Just about any action can be justified as good or evil from some perspective. And some of the greatest evils are those committed by those who are absolutely certain of their inherent goodness.
I know I've seen diety-based options in dialog. Not sure about background-based, but I could see adding that.
Background fluff, for roleplaying decisions is fine. That's useful. Alignment is not.
First off, Paladins in 4E aren't alignment restricted. Evil gods can have Evil Paladins (assuming the DM permits an Evil PC, of course).
But I advocate for no alignment at all, which means your concen wouldn't apply. There wouldn't be "good" paths or "evil" paths. There'd just be "choices", and it would be up to the player to decide. Just about any action can be justified as good or evil from some perspective. And some of the greatest evils are those committed by those who are absolutely certain of their inherent goodness.
ok well hopefully they make the Deities count for something. I will have to learn more about 4e I guess in regards to alignment as everything I know is based on earlier versions.
Comments
lots lacking if those are it. What about someone that believes good & evil should be balanced and they try to help maintain that balance? no more neutral of any kind?
- Titania Silverblade, the Iron Rose of Myth Drannor (Lvl 60 GWF, Destroyer)
- Gwyneth, the Cowardly Cat Burglar Drowling (Lvl 60 TR, Saboteur)
- Lady Rowanne Firehair, Heartwarder of Sune (Lvl 33 DC)
- Satella, Sensate (LvL 44 CW, Renegade, Non-Active)
Check Steppenkat's Foundry Quest Reviews!
Waukeen's dead, man
I've got to say, that motivation for "neutral" always felt fake and unnatural to me. That philosophy just doesn't hold up. Though in the 4e system, that could be presented as LG, since you'd be doing what you think is right for the good of all.
I see what you're saying. I was just using that as an example because I thought it'd show the point more, like a druid that sees the need for the balance in old D&D versions. I would usually consider myself like chaotic neutral as I would usually do the right thing 99% of the time but occasionally if the payoff was big enough I'd do something evil in PnP, like being the hero all the time but then you go ahead and steal some great item when you know that you can't be caught. I guess that'd just fall under Evil now.
4E also has "Unaligned". So basically neutral, and other philosophies not directly related to good vs evil.
Why does any of that need an alignment label? What does that add to the game?
It can add quite a lot to roleplay and to Foundry quests if they ever enable alignment to influence things. I see several requests in the "future classes" threads for paladins, well how do you have paladins without some form of alignment enforcement unless this is just totally going to be a hack/slash mmo where choices/actions never matter to anything. That's just how I see it anyway..
Why should "alignment" influence anything?
Why not simply have character choices and decisions influence things?
During an adventure, why is "you decided to write Good on your sheet, therefore you do the good thing" better than "do you decide to do the good thing?"
Why should it be enforced mechanically? Let people roleplay what they want.
And lack of alignment doesn't mean choices/actions don't matter. You can have choices/actions matter without alignment. Alignment doesn't enable anything, it just gets in the way.
I believe there will be factions for the Gauntlgrym content.
As for that remaining 1%... well they are just griefing trolls, who tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel (aka, Chaotic Evil)
So in short, assume Evil.
that's all true that they can just make choices matter. Why have deity choices at all though? It seems like a total waste if it's not going to be put to a use. You mean they added the deity selections and descriptions just for in game titles? that just doesn't add up, doesn't seem like they'd spend time on that with so much else needing work, unless it was going to matter. as far as why have it enforced? there is no reason to have a paladin if they can then follow evil quest lines etc so if not going to enforce it then why even add it? and maybe they never will.
Please review my campaign and I'll return the favor.
ahhhhh , I am not evil . Those nuns were dead when I got here . I am chaotic neutral .
I know I've seen diety-based options in dialog. Not sure about background-based, but I could see adding that.
Background fluff, for roleplaying decisions is fine. That's useful. Alignment is not.
First off, Paladins in 4E aren't alignment restricted. Evil gods can have Evil Paladins (assuming the DM permits an Evil PC, of course).
But I advocate for no alignment at all, which means your concen wouldn't apply. There wouldn't be "good" paths or "evil" paths. There'd just be "choices", and it would be up to the player to decide. Just about any action can be justified as good or evil from some perspective. And some of the greatest evils are those committed by those who are absolutely certain of their inherent goodness.
ok well hopefully they make the Deities count for something. I will have to learn more about 4e I guess in regards to alignment as everything I know is based on earlier versions.