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

[Charwoman Gene]

I hate it when words mean something other than what they sound like...

Damn Canadians.

 

[hong]

Actually, I'm seriously thinking of banning treasure in my next game. (I did it for my last 2 games, after all.)

 

[RandomCitizenX]

I really have no problem with Alignment being in the game to help people define their charaters. If I say I am playing someone who is Lawful good it sets up a rough idea of my characters methods and morals. What I do have a problem with is mechanics associated with these descriptive traits. It makes everything too cut and dry, and in the case of the old no XP if you switched alignments it was a stiff penalty for a very subjective system.

 

[Cirex]

I have never liked the concept of alignments affecting the game mechanically-wise. But then a barbarian/monk doesn't make much sense...

I removed alignments a long time ago and never looked back. I keep certain restrictions, but those don't affect paladins. I embraced Unearthed Arcana paladins.

 

[sckeener]

As long as spells and effects that target alignments are gone...I don't care if they keep alignment....

I'll just get rid of it for my games.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Free Tibet.

My "real" answer would have been "I'm fine with the Good-Evil and Law-Chaos axes, but the idea of 'Neutrality' as something you can be 'for' has always annoyed me." My ideal alignment system would be:

-------------- Good -----------------
Lawful Good ------------ Chaotic Good
Lawful ------ Unaligned ------ Chaotic
Lawful Evil --------------- Chaotic Evil
--------------- Evil ------------------

With the assumption that most people are Unaligned. I like 4E's move to "Only the REALLY OBVIOUSLY aligned people have a detectable alignment." I also like that most of the mechanical effects of Alignment are gone.

 

[Chibbot]

I feel similar to most in that I don't have any real beef with Alignment as a means to describe a character, but once it starts affecting spells, classes, items, etc, it gets a little out of hand. To me, the idea of "detect evil" is be kind of like "detect pale skin" or "detect brown hair." Its a mechanical system that highlights something which would serve to simply describe who your character is, not be a strict framework. (I suppose I should mention that I haven't ever houseruled anything away, and have (and am in one game) played the "Detect Evil? Attack!" paladin. He's a little more intelligent than that, but the point is, I do use Detect Evil.

Flavor-wise, my biggest issue with alignment is that not all of them really make sense. I can understand Good, and I have my own opinion of Evil, but what constitutes "Neutral"? I find it impossible to think that any interesting character worth playing would actually be truly neutral, even if only on one of two axes. To me, a real neutral character makes me think of the Neutrals from Futurama. Not exactly my idea of an exciting, dynamic character.

On that, though, I did once play a True Neutral Soulknife who I thought was really neat, because it took an interpretation of TN that I hadn't seen before (doesn't mean it hasn't been done, just not within any of my games). As a psionic, he had this view of balance being the ultimate, and that existence is basically a zero-sum game. So, whenever an ally (or anyone) did something that he interpreted as a "Good" action, he would make note and attempt to do something "Evil" a little later on. Similar for Evil action, Lawful actions, and Chaotic actions, so his alignment seemed to be swinging all over the place.

(ps: free tibet)

 

[Gort]

I love unaligned being the standard. It's pretty stupid that you had to hold yourself to a particular moral code in order to be a barbarian. Or a bard.

And the definitions of chaos and law are highly nebulous - you might have a lawful neutral character who disobeys every law he comes across because he has a personal code which tells him to. Acts chaotic in all ways, but he's actually lawful!

Also, I hated how in 3e having an alignment other than true neutral was a liability. If you're good, you're suddenly vulnerable to a whole bunch of spells, abilities, and stuff like unholy swords and blackguard smites. Unless you're going for some particular class, true neutral's the best alignment to go with from a power perspective.

 

[kennew142]

I've never liked alignment, but always found it too difficult to write out due to mechanical issues (Holy Word, etc...). Now that mechanical considerations are gone, I'll be writing it out completely in my upcoming 4e game. Paladins will draw their power from specific divine power sources (e.g., the Celestial Realm). They can be cut off if they violate the tenants of their oaths, but even they will be unaligned in D&D terms.

 

[entrerix]

i always used lawful and chaotic to refer to how methodical or impulsive a person was, my group found it to be a good way to get a feel for their characters personality in two words. I will probably keep using lawful, neutral and chaotic in that sense for that axis, and will use the good, "unaligned" , and evil for the good/evil axis

this is why for me artemis entreri is lawful evil - methodical and merciless, his choice of obeying whatever kingdoms laws he is in is irrelevant to his "alignment"

IN MY GAMES, i know other people play different so "don't flame me bro!"