I can't do without the 9 alignments

[Revinor]

I have also not used them in direct way in 3rd edition. Everybody was unaligned by default and mechanical alignment (one which was detectable/had mechanical effects) was only possible to gain due to supernatural forces. All clerics had alignment of their deities, wizards with imp/quasit familiars were getting a splash of evil, carrying some aligned artifact for longer period of time was leaving some aura on you - but it had nothing to do with your actual moral behavior.

In 4th edition, due to general lack of detection methods/mechanical effects, I care even less. For me, it is a kind of alliegiance indicator. Chaotic Evil is "let's destroy the world, we like primordials" camp, Evil is "let's work against society", neutral is most of "let's live our lives", Good is "Society is more important than me", lawful good is "Society is more important than you".

There is quite big difference between G and LG in my eyes - LG will sacrifice everything to keep order/balance/world in shape, fight destruction coming from primordials, etc. Think inquisition mixed with Mechanus, while officially coloring themselves as 'good'. G is less defined, it is for creatures which think that gods' creation is quite important.

Still, I'm yet to find a place where it makes any gameplay difference except splitting monsters into 'mad destruction' and 'smart corruption'.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I am also glad to see the old alignment system go away. I wish it were removed entirely, but unfortunately there are still alignment effects in 4E. Well, crawl before you walk I suppose.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

I miss them, and apply a designation from the old nine-point array in addition to the LG, Good, Unaligned thing from 4E. I think the others at my tables have done so as well.

 

[Syrsuro]

You can still play any alignment you want. It is just that many of them have indistinguishable effects on game mechanics and thus are all grouped under the umbrella label of 'unaligned'.

But nothing about that stops you from playing your characters as CN, LN or whatever.

Carl

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I wish it were removed entirely, but unfortunately there are still alignment effects in 4E.

Such as?

 

[Cas Liber]

<snip>
I think the current alignment is cleaner, having gotten to the essentials, and yet it is now irrelevant! So people can put CG on the sheet if it makes them feel good.

---CG to feel 'good' not 'Good'


Seriously, I agree they only worked with a degree of slack-cutting. Answer, CG required a bit of naivete and LE some two-facedness. The slaad did seem a little odd as CN in the the old 1e, and are definitely more malign now. OTOH, they can be played as more 'strange' and 'crazy' and so maybe more the old CN(E) (or is that CE(N)?)
cheers
Cas

 

[-Avalon-]

I dunno... I kinda liked the alignment system, but wish that people would understand that it was just guidelines, and also that it was purely based on personal bias and perception...

The LG Knight in Shining Armor, is great and wonderful and save lil kids and slays dragons and drow and all those right? But from the drow and dragon perspective... wouldn't he be CE? The drow champion of Llolth would be CE in most humans' eyes, but to Drow, he abides by the patterns and structures of Llolth's tenants and the "laws" of his city... so LG to drow? But then CE to most Humans?

That CG ranger someone mentioned... the reason Robin Hood was CG is because the current reigning rule was Prince John, whose laws were against the fibers of his being... so in that system, he was chaotic (not following the reigning ruler's laws) and good (because he was against the tyranny of Prince John, and helping the innocent citizens)... That same personality under King Richard (who had much more good-aligned laws in Robin Hood's perspective), obeyed the law and still acted for the good of the people around him...

I think Alignment should be based on concepts such as race or deity or something else... not based on a strict I am GOOD! According to who?

 

[Danceofmasks]

Sure, if you're chaotic you can choose to follow laws.
LE characters are always LE, 'cos that's the only way they get to crush others for not being as anal as they are.

Therefore LE is superior.

Oh yeah, and 4e alignments don't really mean anything, so use 9 or 30 if you want.

 

[Daijin]

i still use the old 9 alignments. I just change 4e stuff to work with them.

Works rather well, other than those who really are Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Evil labeled, but then no one likes being called a darkwalking bastich

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I dunno... I kinda liked the alignment system, but wish that people would understand that it was just guidelines, and also that it was purely based on personal bias and perception...

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

You are talking about moral relativism. A perfectly valid theory, but one that has nothing to do with the D&D alignment system. If you adopt moral relativism for your game, you automatically throw the alignment system out of the window (which 4e allows you to do easily).

Alignments are tied to universal forces bigger than
deities or any other allegiance you might have.

The D&D aligment is very expressly absolute. In D&D, Good and Evil are real universal forces that do not change depending on who is looking at them. An Evil creature might rationalize himself as being good, but he is just deluded. He is still Evil. Good and Evil exist and have a D&D definition. It is not up to debate.

If you want everything gray, and I don't mind a gritty game myself, then fine. Get rid of the alignment system. Frankly, 80% of my campaign are that way.

But don't wish that people would understand aligment 'was purely based on personal bias and perception' because it has never been. It has always been very much a moral absolutist system that fit with the classic fantasy saga.