This thread has probably been done before, but... I noticed that the Spined Devil has no alignment listed (though this could simply be because it's a mere miniature stat block), and elsewhere, people have said that D&D4e will place less emphasis on alignment.
I have mixed feelings about this, but I have mixed feelings about the deemphasis on alignment (the possibility that they will make alignment "optional" or something like that). On the one hand, apart from D&D, I play lots of RPGs without alignment, and I like them just fine. No need to classify peoples' psychology and personality in some rigid alignment terms. On the other hand, alignment seems so integral to the D&D worldview that it would strike me as very weird -- as ditching something unique about D&D -- if it goes.
Basically, this is a fantasy game, so the traditional D&D idea is that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil really *do* exist in concrete, physical terms, right? I can't really see a reason to get rid of this apart from the desire to just fiddle with the setting for fiddling's sake. (Of course, heck, this is a new edition, I know that's the sort of fiddling they're gonna do.) If people are bugged by spells like "Detect Alignment", there are tons of ways to handle this in-game other than ditching alignment (saving throws, making Bluff resist Detect Alignment, counterspells, making "Detect Alignment" only work on outsiders and monsters and demons/devils/angels/etc.).
My guess is that, actually, the real reason for ditching or de-emphasizing alignments would not be to make a "more realistic" world (although this might be secondary)... I'd guess it's, in fact, to increase party cohesion and make the party by definition more "goal-focused." Older editions of D&D always gave the option to play a party with a mixture of evil and good characters and pretty much gave the players carte blanche to have their characters fight and argue with one another and tug the game in different directions as a result. (Chaotic Evil Dude: "I stab out the prisoner's eye!" Paladin: "No! I stop him!" DM: "Roll initiative.") However, what with 4e's introduction of "party roles" (Controller, Defender, Striker, etc.), and the section on how to maintain party cohesion in "Iron Heroes" (quote: "If you find yourself saying 'But that's what my character would do,' then your actions may be fun for you but disruptive to the game as a whole") I am left wondering whether the de-emphasizing of "alignment" is being done in order to take people away from PKing and inter-party-combat types of gameplay, and to encourage better group cohesion in general.
Now this is an understandable strategy, and I agree with "Iron Heroes" that "the game should be fun for everyone", but I have to say: I think that role-playing is ultimately about the individual (i.e. playing whatever character you want), not the group. So if there is going to be a tacit assumption in 4e that player-characters are going to get along and never fight or argue about anything in-character, I say nay. Of course, I think the PLAYERS should always get along out-of-character, griefers are always bad, if your friends and the DM don't want you to play a Chaotic Evil assassin then maybe you shouldn't, but I appreciate the "automatic inter-party friction possibilities" provided by a group with characters of different alignments. To me, this is a good element of D&D.
Now obviously, even without alignment (perhaps ESPECIALLY without alignment), people will still be able to play characters with whatever kinds of personalities they like, and there will still be "I kill the prisoner!" "No! I stop him!" moments. If alignment is made purely optional in the service of "all morality is grey" than that's understandable to me. But if alignment is made purely optional in the service of "keeping the plot rolling and the group together and making it easier for novice groups to get games going without it degenerating into PK-fests," welll..... I dunno. I'm not convinced that this is the right thing. I still prefer Original Ultima Online ("play a heroic or unheroic character, as you prefer, in a fantasy world with a bunch of other people, some of whom may be PKing jerks") to World of Warcraft ("play a heroic character and here is the quest you must do"), so maybe that just makes me in the minority. Of course, in D&D3.x you "technically" weren't supposed to be able to play an evil character either, I suppose.
Oh well, I'll see how it reads in the final game. And lastly, of course, I may be totally wrong in my assumptions about how alignment is being used in 4e, so who knows. ^_^
P.S. I finally read Iron Heroes and I must admit that it's pretty darn good.
I have mixed feelings about this, but I have mixed feelings about the deemphasis on alignment (the possibility that they will make alignment "optional" or something like that). On the one hand, apart from D&D, I play lots of RPGs without alignment, and I like them just fine. No need to classify peoples' psychology and personality in some rigid alignment terms. On the other hand, alignment seems so integral to the D&D worldview that it would strike me as very weird -- as ditching something unique about D&D -- if it goes.
Basically, this is a fantasy game, so the traditional D&D idea is that Law, Chaos, Good and Evil really *do* exist in concrete, physical terms, right? I can't really see a reason to get rid of this apart from the desire to just fiddle with the setting for fiddling's sake. (Of course, heck, this is a new edition, I know that's the sort of fiddling they're gonna do.) If people are bugged by spells like "Detect Alignment", there are tons of ways to handle this in-game other than ditching alignment (saving throws, making Bluff resist Detect Alignment, counterspells, making "Detect Alignment" only work on outsiders and monsters and demons/devils/angels/etc.).
My guess is that, actually, the real reason for ditching or de-emphasizing alignments would not be to make a "more realistic" world (although this might be secondary)... I'd guess it's, in fact, to increase party cohesion and make the party by definition more "goal-focused." Older editions of D&D always gave the option to play a party with a mixture of evil and good characters and pretty much gave the players carte blanche to have their characters fight and argue with one another and tug the game in different directions as a result. (Chaotic Evil Dude: "I stab out the prisoner's eye!" Paladin: "No! I stop him!" DM: "Roll initiative.") However, what with 4e's introduction of "party roles" (Controller, Defender, Striker, etc.), and the section on how to maintain party cohesion in "Iron Heroes" (quote: "If you find yourself saying 'But that's what my character would do,' then your actions may be fun for you but disruptive to the game as a whole") I am left wondering whether the de-emphasizing of "alignment" is being done in order to take people away from PKing and inter-party-combat types of gameplay, and to encourage better group cohesion in general.
Now this is an understandable strategy, and I agree with "Iron Heroes" that "the game should be fun for everyone", but I have to say: I think that role-playing is ultimately about the individual (i.e. playing whatever character you want), not the group. So if there is going to be a tacit assumption in 4e that player-characters are going to get along and never fight or argue about anything in-character, I say nay. Of course, I think the PLAYERS should always get along out-of-character, griefers are always bad, if your friends and the DM don't want you to play a Chaotic Evil assassin then maybe you shouldn't, but I appreciate the "automatic inter-party friction possibilities" provided by a group with characters of different alignments. To me, this is a good element of D&D.
Now obviously, even without alignment (perhaps ESPECIALLY without alignment), people will still be able to play characters with whatever kinds of personalities they like, and there will still be "I kill the prisoner!" "No! I stop him!" moments. If alignment is made purely optional in the service of "all morality is grey" than that's understandable to me. But if alignment is made purely optional in the service of "keeping the plot rolling and the group together and making it easier for novice groups to get games going without it degenerating into PK-fests," welll..... I dunno. I'm not convinced that this is the right thing. I still prefer Original Ultima Online ("play a heroic or unheroic character, as you prefer, in a fantasy world with a bunch of other people, some of whom may be PKing jerks") to World of Warcraft ("play a heroic character and here is the quest you must do"), so maybe that just makes me in the minority. Of course, in D&D3.x you "technically" weren't supposed to be able to play an evil character either, I suppose.
Oh well, I'll see how it reads in the final game. And lastly, of course, I may be totally wrong in my assumptions about how alignment is being used in 4e, so who knows. ^_^
P.S. I finally read Iron Heroes and I must admit that it's pretty darn good.
Last edited:
