D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I wanted to run this past you all and see if this player would still be considered good alignment.
Our party came across a group of hobgoblins attacking a halfling. The good aligned player told them to halt. Upon hearing his words the hobgoblins looked up and were startled by our group and proceeded to run away. After checking on the halfling we learned that the hobgoblins that were attacking him were in fact slave traders.
The good player, wanting to take out this evil creatures, decided to set off after them. (Somehow, even though they took off on foot 5 mintues ahead of us, it took us an hour to catch up to them on horseback. But that's a mater for the DM. )
So we see them running ahead of us on the road. The good player takes his horse and runs through them instantly killing two of the 5, and blooding another with his bow after he stopped in front of them.
After the "battle" was over, I looked over at him and said in jest, "I'm not sure but I think you just took some negative alignment points for that one."
His defense was that he is a good aligned player and they are evil creatures who are even more evil because they are slave traders.
So does attacking someone who has their back to you, that is no imediate threat to you or your party fall in line with being of good alignment? Even if they are evil creatures? Or am I confusing lawful good with good?
Again, this is more my curiosity thatn anything, I found the whole thing just rather funny. I kept picturing Neverwinter Knights when you would do something that went against your alignment and the negative points would show up over head.
And evil, slave trading creatures are ALWAYS a threat to you even with their back turned. If something wants to eat you, kill you and/or capture you to enslave you, does it matter if they're fleeing? Let them go and you take evil points for all the people butchered, raped, eaten and enslaved in the next town.
So does attacking someone who has their back to you, that is no imediate threat to you or your party fall in line with being of good alignment? Even if they are evil creatures? Or am I confusing lawful good with good?
Is the guy honour bound by some code or something? If so it may have been ever so slightly against a LG alignment to attack them unchallenged. Just because he doesn't give every evil scumbag slaver a fair chance in a fight does not make him even slightly evil. I'd congratulate the PC (as DM) on putting a dent in the slave trade in the area and call it a good act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regicide
Trick question, 4E doesn't have alignment.
It doesn't? Then what does the alignment section of my character sheet and PHB mean then?
__________________ "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson 18th century English author.
Maybe the way he did was not okay, but if you look at good vs evil, he did his job..
When he saw them he may could have warned them first "Stop you lousy slavers" and if they stopped maybe he could apprehend them, if they didn't stop he could stop them the hard way (what he did with running them over)
When good aligned, it is not wrong to kill, it's just how you justify it..
Killing a bunch of gnolls because you think they are merciless SOB's who do slave trade is evil.
Kiling a bunch of gnolls because you know they are merciless SOB's who do slave trade is good.
(This all comes from a perspective in the D&D world, not reall world good vs evil)
The answer is: he's whatever alignment he thinks he is.
Thankfully, 4E dropped the simulationism and didn't dictate moral choices for PCs.
The question is: what are you going to do about it?
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
I've always thought the idea of alignments were silly. Players are free to roleplay in whatever manner they feel is appropriate. It is their actions that dictate the consequences/rewards they receive.
Having said that, the only use for alignment is in general party makeup (party is composed or generally good people for example)...so to minimize silly inter party conflict that can easily ruin the overall game. If the game progresses in a way that the 'good' party starts performing acts that other people in the world consider to be 'wrong', then the consequences begin to arise from said actions.
"[It] is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
Alignment is now how the character is perceived by the majority of people of the world... I still think alignment should be what the majority of your own people think of you though...
In this case, he is ONLY a good guy, good guys are allowed to ambush people, play dirty tricks, sand in the eyes, whatever... as long as they are doing things for the greater good of the world...
Lawful Good guys would most likely have a form of conflict they stick to, IE call out the name of his opponent before approaching, make sure both combatants have weapons, only fight on even ground so there is no unfair advantage, whatever... this is the reason people hate playing lawful good for the most part and is also the reason they got the nickname "Lawful Stupid" around where I live. (btw, I love playing LG, its more fun and challenging)
So, your guy who basically ambushed 5 slavers... that was a good act, not a "lawful" good act though... but who said anything about laws? lol, he may be a robin hood type and do a lot of ambushing
He destroyed an evil threat by using an expedient manner. He didn't torture them. He didn't kill them after they surrendered. He didn't chase them and terrorize them with taunts before killing them.The act of killing isn't necessarily evil; the motives and means play heavily into it. In this case the means was morally neutral, while the goal was good.
Keep in mind that in 4e there are no game mechanics to penalize actions that are out of alignment bounds. The only means are social. A Paladin of Pelor who goes on a murderous serial killing rampage retains all of his powers but would likely be hunted down and killed by his fellow Paladins, and would find no solace in Pelor's churches.
So does attacking someone who has their back to you, that is no imediate threat to you or your party fall in line with being of good alignment? Even if they are evil creatures? Or am I confusing lawful good with good?
Yes, it certainly can fall in line with the alignment. If this player was playing a Paladin of some God of noble virtue, who never surprised an opponent, then it might be a problem, but given the circumstances, I don't see that it'd necessarily be required to give them further warning. The Hobgoblins were presumably a potential danger, slave-taking was against their cultural mores, and they knew their was a threat from the party, otherwise they'd not have run in the first place.
Now if the slave-taking Hobgoblins were a part of a lawful authority, or if one of them was merely injured unto death, and the player declined to act on it, that might be an issue, but even then, there's nothing mechanically in the game to handle it, so it'd be up to the DM anyway.
I honestly disagree with this. If you think that role-playing seriously has no place in this game, than you have been playing the wrong game.
You seem pretty bitter about this. Any paticular reason why?
Perhaps I can explain. Alignment has for many many years (ok, decades), been considered a straitjacket or yoke on Players (and sometimes DMs) that has done anything but foster role-playing. Instead, it was an arbitrary system that served more as a punishment tool than a reward.
At least that's some people's perception of it. Others may perceive different, including myself.
Perhaps I can explain. Alignment has for many many years (ok, decades), been considered a straitjacket or yoke on Players (and sometimes DMs) that has done anything but foster role-playing.
I was kinda ok with the alignment system in 3.5. I actually really liked the mechanic that you had to redeem yourself somehow if you strayed too far from you alignment. Obviously the major flaw in this idea is that what is considered lawful/evil/good/chaotic to some doesn't seem that way to others. This made everyone have to guess the DM's arbitrary POV in some situations.
As much as others might disagree I believe having a 3.5 alignment system with MORE guidelines as to what's considered good/evil might actually make the system function better.
I was kinda ok with the alignment system in 3.5. I actually really liked the mechanic that you had to redeem yourself somehow if you strayed too far from you alignment. Obviously the major flaw in this idea is that what is considered lawful/evil/good/chaotic to some doesn't seem that way to others. This made everyone have to guess the DM's arbitrary POV in some situations.
As much as others might disagree I believe having a 3.5 alignment system with MORE guidelines as to what's considered good/evil might actually make the system function better.
Which is why I would generally only enforce strict alignments if the person in question was getting something for it (Cleric, Paladin, etc.). Even those characters would get warnings rather than being slapped down hard, without prior knowledge that they were drifting.
Yeah you totally should get a few warnings that you are drifting unless you are specifically attempting to do something you KNOW is against the alignment (paladin out for lawless vengeance due to utter destruction of something he loves)
Cross out your character's alignment and replace it with the opposite. What has changed? Nothing.
...other than your character's entire outlook on life, the universe, and everything. No, it's not really enforced mechanically (which some of us didn't in the first place), but roleplaying is still there, and it says a heck of a lot about what a character does and who they are.
The original post really highlights why it's a good idea why there aren't rule mechanics to enforce and punish alignment. Often, actions can be perceived very differently by 2 different people. The implications of the action could largely be either subjective, or dependent on the style of your gameworld.
Regardless, I don't see this as evil. In 3E, this *might* be considered "Chaotic Good", or "Neutral Good". I believe "Good" covers both of these alignments now in 4E. I don't think it's Lawful Good though.
Part of the problem is also you have to bring up the debate of whether an action is inherently good or evil, or whether the intention of that act matters. That belief varies from person to person, and should be the debate of philosophers, not players. ;-)
Also consider, that while you may have automatically thought it was evil, some DM's would have considered it evil to let them go. Which brings us back to alignment being a subject of debate and subjective. In fact, in a recent thread, someone posted that as DM that his players had stopped a villain, interrogated him, and when faced with the choice between letting him go or killing him on the spot, they spared him... the DM punished them by having the villain go on a killing spree through various villages and only leaving a handful of survivors to relay the message that he he was set free by the party adventurers.
I suppose that example really leads to the answer of, it depends... what style of game, and morality do you want to encourage in your campaign?
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
Check out Sorcerer. There is a reason it won the Diana Jones award.
There is a lot to be said on this issue.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
...other than your character's entire outlook on life, the universe, and everything.
And as others in this thread have said, 2 people would often view what alignment meant completely differently and on top of that many people view it as a straight jacket (despite clear and abundant rules to the contrary.) So is it your characters outlook, or is it a word or two that everyone will interpret differently and has no meaning? It certainly has no effect on game play.
And if you decide you're going to murder a village does it mean you're not allowed to because it says LG on your sheet? No, it doesn't, unlike every other thing on your character sheet. It is the one thing on the character sheet that doesn't mean what it says. If you want to lift a two ton block and it says you have 10 strength on your character sheet, guess what, you're not lifting that block. LG and kill a village, go for it, two tons with 10 STR, no.
)
It doesn't? Then what does the alignment section of my character sheet and PHB mean then?
(btw, I love playing LG, its more fun and challenging)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
