What is your alignment?

[Ryujin]

Well, I think you're underestimating the impact of the default. Me, I can understand why people are relieved to see the core rules changed to something more akin to their liking. Sure, you could have changed it already yourself, many people did, for things besides just alignments, but when they see it in the core rules? It looks good. And this isn't just alignment. Things like level limits, hit points, and thief skills also fall into this domain. I don't know how else I can help you understand it. Hope that helps. If not, maybe somebody else will try.

Oh, I understand you quite well. I just think that someone who looks at the rules and thinks that they're screwed by them isn't getting into the feel of RPGs. They're a tool to set your imagination free, not lock you in a box. You start with the default rules and change them to suit you. If you read them and see them as chiselled in stone tablets, then you're missing the whole point.

That's a generic "you", in case that wasn't obvious

 

[WalterKovacs]

Oh, I understand you quite well. I just think that someone who looks at the rules and thinks that they're screwed by them isn't getting into the feel of RPGs. They're a tool to set your imagination free, not lock you in a box. You start with the default rules and change them to suit you. If you read them and see them as chiselled in stone tablets, then you're missing the whole point.

That's a generic "you", in case that wasn't obvious

Changing to suit you, singular, is a lot easier than changing to suit the entire party including the DM.

Allignment especially, is always a game of what does the character see their actions as and what does the DM see the action as.

The DM creates the world and thus determines what the limits on allignment are. Hopefully a DM has taken his players into consideration and isn't just presenting his views as the only ones. However, even with understanding, it's going to be impossible to get a complete consensus. So, players will do what their character believes to be right, and then the DM will tell them they are acting against their allignment, etc, etc, etc ...

The number of threads and discussions about allignments basically shows how little people agree about allignments, etc. The same is true for play groups. Personally, I like the 4e system. I basically consider what my character is, and drop him into one of the three 'acceptable' allignment boxes for the PC. I know that when it was tied into the mechanics, it often meant deciding on the allignment when building the mechanical character, which meant you then had to develop the personality to 'fit' the allignment.

Another thing: Forcing a player to change their allignment in 4e doesn't really "punish" them. However, having people see them differently causes their actions to have consequences. So, instead of giving "evil points" to the PC, anyone that witnessed/knows of the act well ... knows of it. Some of the PCs may see it as a cowardly or evil act, while others may actually think it was a good thing. You could have an infernal pact tiefling who is actually lawful good ... BUT people are likely going to treat him as evil until he shows them otherwise. Allignment doesn't directly influence people's attitude towards you, but your reputation is influenced by your actions (not your motivation). The allignment of the person 'judging' your actions, on the other hand, will influence their attitude towards you.

So, allignment is basically a handy reminder of that characters (or NPCs) outlook towards the world, motivation, etc. Their actions will speak for themselves. If the PCs are renowned for their Dirty Harry style, they may be praised by the unalligned towns people who are happy that their city was saved at all costs, but the lawful good people of the religious order within the city give them a cold shoulder and see them as barely better than the threats they are dealing with ... for example.

I think the old idea of punishing a player for going outside their allignment, or 'forcing' them to change allignment were a little odd, as it basically discouraged character growth. It's one thing to act out of character ... another for the character to evolve. Now some things, like a paladin "falling" and having to redeem himself is something that has ties to the stories that inspired the class in he first place ... but you can just as easily have that kind of story without stripping the paladin of his powers, just having the paladin punishing himself (so a PC chooses to take on the 'quest' for redemption, and isn't having it thrust upon him by a DM that disagrees with his definition of lawful good). And with the more vague link between god and paladin, you can even have a "Fugitive" type situation where a paladin is framed as a heretic and has his own order coming after him and the party, even though he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[aurance]

And yet an alignment still makes for effective shorthand on a character's general motives, when used correctly. In 4e if a player was going against his stated alignment, then I would have no issue with changing it unilaterally. IT would have no effect on the character other than those couple of words on a sheet of paper, but do you think that most players would take it with equanimity?

But what function does this serve, other than as a "what you think my character's alignment is" vs. "what I think my character's alignment is" metagame?

 

[Ryujin]

But what function does this serve, other than as a "what you think my character's alignment is" vs. "what I think my character's alignment is" metagame?

In my games I tend to spell out, quite clearly, what I expect of the alignments. I tend to award bonus experience for good role play and alignment can figure into this, as part of the overall character construct.

 

[IanB]

Since this is the rules forum, I will give an on-topic answer to the OP:

It doesn't matter. With some very minor exceptions, alignment has no mechanical impact in 4e.

 

[Bumbles]

Oh, I understand you quite well.

Well, I don't quite agree, since I don't see you recognizing what I'm saying.

Sorry, maybe some other time.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, I don't quite agree, since I don't see you recognizing what I'm saying.

Sorry, maybe some other time.

I recognize it. I simply don't agree with it.

 

[Moonsword]

4e is pretty careful to separate out a character's powers from his behavior. No class loses powers based on ethos violations - at least that's the default assumption.

Depends on the setting, but directly and flagrantly violating a deity's core teachings when you're sworn to the deity in question usually doesn't end well. I can't say exactly how I would respond if put on the spot by a situation like that, but I'd at least consider stripping their powers in, say, Greyhawk or even FR. Eberron? Wouldn't do it.

EDIT: Yes, I'm aware that it's not tied in. We're talking about an extreme outlier here anyway, not something I ever expect to have to deal with in play. Stripping their powers is an extreme act, but a paladin of Bahamut randomly murdering a village is an extreme provocation. I'm not sure whether there's really a good response for the GM other than asking the player what the heck they're thinking, anyway.

 

[Ryujin]

Depends on the setting, but directly and flagrantly violating a deity's core teachings when you're sworn to the deity in question usually doesn't end well. I can't say exactly how I would respond if put on the spot by a situation like that, but I'd at least consider stripping their powers in, say, Greyhawk or even FR. Eberron? Wouldn't do it.

EDIT: Yes, I'm aware that it's not tied in. We're talking about an extreme outlier here anyway, not something I ever expect to have to deal with in play. Stripping their powers is an extreme act, but a paladin of Bahamut randomly murdering a village is an extreme provocation. I'm not sure whether there's really a good response for the GM other than asking the player what the heck they're thinking, anyway.

In a 4e setting the way to handle it would typically be penance; perhaps a quest to balance the wrong done. Excommunication or actively hunting the offending Paladin would be an option in extreme cases. After all, a good religion can't have someone running around and doing evil in their name.

In other words the penalties would typically be social, rather than mechanical.

 

[SigmaX0]

Here's a moral dilemma for you, one we had to deal with at the start of our last campaign.

My character had accepted a mission to 'steal' a shipment of adamantine, which was en route to the city from the nearest port.

The man who gave the quest was an unsavoury gangster sort, and the metal itself was to be delivered to the city watch. The leader of the city watch was a malicious little so and so, but that's really neither here nor there.

So far, pretty simple, nice n' evil.

However, the reason for apprehending the shipment was the result of a tip off that the carriage was to be the target of attack by a horde of goblins.

Our task was to one way or the other, obtain the shipment, take half, and deliver half to the city watch so that they weren't left with no supplies at all.

So we staked out the place where we knew the goblins would strike. There were too many of them, and they had soon overwhelmed the small contingent of guards assigned to protect the metal and the teamster driving the carriage.

We waited until the tactical advantage was greatest, and then moved in, finished off the goblins and secured the shipment. Unfortunately, only the (old man) teamster survived, and had begun slowly running towards the city.

As we passed him on our new carriage, we politely offered him a lift back to the city, whilst I gently reminded him to not mention these events to anyone, we were taking half the shipment, but just saved his life, so fair game. (in my opinion)

However, as evidenced by the barely concealed look of glee upon my DM's face, this teamster was in fact Law incarnate, and refused to accept the offer, and insisted on not only a lift home, but on turning us in to the authorities at the nearest opportunity.

This did not sit well with me, so I once again explained that we were in the middle of the countryside, his guards had just been murdered, not only could we just kill him to shut him up, but we had the perfect alibi should anyone find out. (the goblins did it!)

In steps our fighter, who resolutely refuses to let me kill the teamster! Claiming it is 'wrong', he attempts to shield this ludicrous individual from harm.

Unperturbed, I notched an arrow to my bow string, and felled the old codger as he tried to run towards the authorities, and the malevolent city watch leader I knew would be overjoyed with a chance to lock us up and throw away the key. Unfortunately, my rolls were none to hot, and I only managed to reduce him to 'dying', prompting my fighter friend to leap off the carriage and stabilise said geraitric ingrate!

Panicking, I decided the only option was to turn the cart around, and head off in the opposite direction to start a new life with my hoard of precious hardened metals.

Just as I was pondering the implications of adventuring solo, my dragonborn wizard companion catches up with me, and informs me that he has just deposited the contents of his acidic dragon breath onto aformentioned teamster's barely conscious frame, ending his troublesome existence.

A big argument ensued, me and the wizard not proud about what we did, but recognising it as a necessary measure. After all, had we not been there, the teamster would be dead too, and all the adamantine stolen. Besides, if the fighter had such a problem, should he not have intervened when the goblins first threatened the still-breathing guards?

Granted what we did could hardly be called 'good', but I would have called it more neutral than outright evil. A tough one, sorry for the length. Opinions?