Alignment Issues!

[Knightfall]

I didn't see a thread for alignment, so I figured I should start one.

Personally, I prefer the system of 9 alignments although I'd be willing to replace "True Neutral" for "Unaligned."

The classic Chaotic-Neutral-Lawful alignment system is cool in a retro sort of way, but I want my alignment system to be more complex than that.

The 4E system was okay, and had its innovations, but it didn't feel like D&D to me.

What does everyone want regarding alignments? Who does want them at all?* What should be the core structure of the game?

*I don't think this will happen.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a big fan of the 9 alignments. However, I did run fantasy campaigns in which alignment wasn't used and that was fun too.

 

[Nivenus]

I actually think there should be 10 alignments: the told 9 alignments plus 4e's Unaligned.

Why you ask? Because Unaligned really covers different ground then True Neutral does. Neutral, as it existed in editions prior to 4e, always came in basically two flavors: characters who were actively neutral and seeking to avoid being "overly" good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and those who simply didn't care.

The "didn't care" flavor meshes well with the Unaligned alignment, while True Neutral doesn't really.

Also, I'd favor simplifying some of the names. Good and Evil can become the new names for Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, indicating that characters of those alignments aren't actively trying to balance law and chaos most of the time, they're just fully devoted to serve good or evil.

Similarly, I'd rename Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral to simply Lawful and Chaotic, which I think would solve some of the "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid" problems of prior editions, so that players of those alignments don't feel like they have to constantly go back and forth between being both good and evil and instead just focusing on a devotion to order or chaos.

Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Storminator]

I've been running a bunch of "unaligned" 4e games. I'm ready to ditch alignment completely. If they include it I hope it isn't in base level, and I hope it's impact is as small as possible.

PS

 

[Nebulous]

I say definitely include the 9 alignments, but don't attach a lot of game mechanics or spells to it. Detect Evil should work only if something is overwhelming, inherently pure evil, like a paladin detecting a demon. Not a shady pickpocket.

 

[Nivenus]

I say definitely include the 9 alignments, but don't attach a lot of game mechanics or spells to it. Detect Evil should work only if something is overwhelming, inherently pure evil, like a paladin detecting a demon. Not a shady pickpocket.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea as well. Detect Alignment spells can easily end up defusing tension or surprises in encounters, as well as neatly folding NPCs and monsters into "kill it" and "don't kill it," which I think reduces roleplaying.

Perhaps there should be a variable DC if they include a Detect Alignment ability in 4e (or throw it under the purview of a skill like Arcana or Religion), with the easiest DCs for detecting demons and what-not, while the higher-up DCs would be for detecting the general moral attitude of an NPC, under the presumption that the less evil there is, the harder it is to detect.

Any such rules would probably end up in supplements, of course, given the number of people who really loathe mechanical alignments to begin with. I still feel that alignments as character descriptors would have a place in the core rules (for describing monsters and PCs) but any kind of mechanical effects should be put elsewhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Alignment is one of those knobs that probably can have a single page in the core rulebook which explains what it is, what it's used for, and show examples of the 9-grid and 5-line. The DM can then choose whether or not he thinks he should use it, and if he does... the book gives a couple examples of where mechanically it could be used in game.

While you could easily remove game mechanics from the alignment system altogether, at that point it just becomes nothing more than character description. For it to be a real knob to add in... make sure the page has a couple Rituals (like Detect Good/Evil, Protection From Good/Evil) to allow those player to actually use the alignment system during gameplay.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd like to see nine alignments included, with unaligned as either a 10th or substitution for TN. That said, any mechanical implications of the alignment system should be optional. I don't want to be stuck with Lawful Good if I want to play a Paladin, for example. However, not being one to dictate what is universally fun, for those that *DO* like the old school Paladin, those options need to be there.

I always hated the aligned spells, too. They'll be there, I'm sure, because lots of people like them, but it's easy enough for me to say, "In my campaign, none of those exist." Bam. Fixed.

 

[Mercutio01]

I personally will try to avoid alignment if at all possible. That said, I wouldn't object to its presence in D&D Next at all. I'd just like to see alignment fairly divorced from mechanics, as [MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION] said.

 

[Knightfall]

I have no problem with alignments being separated from the game's mechanics (in somes ways, its better), but there has to be an option to reconnect them.