What is your alignment?

[Charwoman Gene]

Then what does the alignment section of my character sheet and PHB mean then?

Same thing as "Eyes" and "Hair"

 

[Bumbles]

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.

Many won't bother.

 

[Bumbles]

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.

 

[Flipguarder]

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.

 

[Ryujin]

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.

 

[Flipguarder]

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)

 

[Moonsword]

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.

I'd say that's a lot that changed, actually.

 

[N0Man]

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?

 

[LostSoul]

Check out Sorcerer. There is a reason it won the Diana Jones award.

There is a lot to be said on this issue.

 

[Regicide]

...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.