D&D 4E Alignment, 4e, you, and your paladins.

[Kzach]

I was really chuffed when I first heard that alignment in 4e might be limited to the simple good/evil axis with an unaligned option.

Now I hear there's lawful good and maybe chaotic evil... huh?

I know I'm not alone when it comes to alignment disagreements. I've been playing since AD&D 1st ed. but I've never had a stable group for long so maybe that's why I've been subjected to the great alignment debate so often in groups.

I'm hoping that the lawful and chaotic aspects aren't hard-wired into the system as if they are, like previous editions, then I'll be seriously disappointed as this will be the one big disappointment for me of the edition.

Anyway, I just thought I'd put up a debate about alignment and see what people's preferences are when it comes to the alignment system.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Really, Freeing Tibet just makes sense. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Green Knight]

I'm sure it does, but having that as a poll option makes this poll pretty well useless. What's the point of having a poll if you're going to include a "funny" option which most people will invariably click on, thus negating the whole purpose of the poll, as you're not getting any worthwhile information from it? Don't mean to turn this post into a rant, but it's something of a pet peeve of mine.

Hmm. It occurs to me. Next time I get a dog I should name him 'Peeve'.

 

[VannATLC]

While it occurs to me that Chaotic Evil and Lawful evil are valid.. as is Evil, and Neutral, and unaligned, and Good, and Lawful Good...

I actually think Chaotic Good is nigh on impossible. Not abiding the law, but good? Well.. that makes you Good.

Its not a funny.. in an otter/duck.

IE, none of the 3 are applicable to me.

 

[ToreadorVampire]

[wot? ToreadorVampire actually posting on ENWorld?!]

In short, I think alignment as-is is overused. Here's what I would like (in my ideal game system):

Average sentient creatures are *all* unaligned. This means that whilst they may act a bit evil, or a bit goodly, or whatever, their alignment isn't strong enough to be a force worthy of detection by alignment-detecting FX or game system purposes.

Then, alignment is used only to record the extremes. Paladins, as a 1st level ability should gain the "goodly" descriptor, all outsiders from an aligned plane gain descriptors of their plane (since they are made from their alignment). Characters over a certain power threshold could maybe have a descriptor too (perhaps bought as a feat).

A few races (who are inherrently magical in nature and are all strongly aligned) would also come with a descriptor (say Drow to evil maybe?).

Having an alignment descriptor should have some meaningful game-system purpose, like you inflict damage of your descriptor in battle, or "goodly" things gain bonusses versus evil. An alignment descriptor should be a coveted thing, as it provides a nice power-up.

Just to make things clear though - an alignment descriptor should be an extreme and prestigious thing ... I'm not saying that a creature with an alignment descriptor should be supernaturally prevented from taking actions opposed to that alignment. But there should be serious consequences of breaking alignment - akin to a Paladin falling from grace.

This removes alignment for 99.9% of the game world's population (or if your demographics of powerful characters/paladins/supernatural creatures are different, maybe only 95%), making it less of a deal for joe average. But makes it a worthwhile game mechanic for those who want to use it.

Oh yeah, I clicked "Free Tibet", erm, none of the other options suited me.

 

[JosephK]

Free Tibet.


Anyway..

The good/evil, law/chaos model for alignments in D&D has almost always annoyed me. I guess we used it to some degree when it first was introduced, but as far as being a type of attitude barometer or something, it's waaay too simplistic and generic. To aid me and my players, I'd much rather have some sort of arche-type idealism gauges (freedom, law, evil, good, nature, civilization, etc).. Sorta like the ardent mantles the in complete psionic, although obviously not all of them. You could rate each on a scale of 1-10 or something, to give a quick overview on what your character deems important. Imo the LG-LE-LN-etc scale doesnt provide me with enough clues as to how my character would react in different circumstances, to be useful.. As a result the only time we use aligments for anything, is for determining whether or not you can use a magic item or take levels in a prestige class (or base class I guess).

 

[DeusExMachina]

Actually I am fine with both the law/chaos and evil/good axes being in the game, but I just don't want them to be so important to the rules. They should be more roleplay related, because when they get involved with the rule sit becomes impossible for somebody to be somewhat evil or evil in certain situations and good in others and becomes an excuse to kill these supposedly monolithic people without remorse.
If it's just a roleplay guideline, people will hopefully treat it less as a straitjacket and more as just a guideline. And there will be no more "detect evil at will and if it's a positive go and kill him" tactics...
Also I hope it will give paladins a bit more relaxation as to how to treat their moral code and such, because the code in 3.5 was ridiculous...


Having said that, freeing Tibet does make sense...

 

[Wormwood]

Ah, Alignment.

Wish it into the cornfield.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I love how Free Tibet is winning

I'm okay okay with d20 modern or Rolemaster or any type of alignment which is JUST a description of your character as opposed to 2e style alignment where it's actually part of the game mechanics, and you get penalized for not following what the DM thinks your alignment should act like.

3.x moved away from this, but apparently not enough, so now they're moving further away again, I support this.

 

[Green Knight]

Ah, Alignment.

Wish it into the cornfield.

"It's good that you wished it into the cornfield, Anthony. Everyone, don't you think that was good?"