Alignment and Party Dynamics

[pemerton]

And I see this as another "We can't fix this set of rules, so let's just throw them out" decision.

I feel that the rules could state clearly what good and evil deeds are. What lawful and chaotic deeds are. If you play alignment as "Alignment is determined from your actions" as opposed to "Alignment is your intention, actions don't matter so much" then alignment can be made to work.

It seems to me that this might be problematic. Very many people disagree over what sort of conduct is good and what not. Likewise with respect to law and chaos. So how would the designers come up with the sort of list you are suggesting without treading on a lot of toes?

It is further complicated by the fact that a large number of D&D characters are essentially killers-for-hire, who in the modern world most would regard as murderers (or, at best, morally ambiguous), but in the context of the game are expected to be regarded as heroes. This inherent tension is, IME, responsible for about 50% at least of paladin and other alignment threads.

 

[Hussar]

It seems to me that this might be problematic. Very many people disagree over what sort of conduct is good and what not. Likewise with respect to law and chaos. So how would the designers come up with the sort of list you are suggesting without treading on a lot of toes?

It is further complicated by the fact that a large number of D&D characters are essentially killers-for-hire, who in the modern world most would regard as murderers (or, at best, morally ambiguous), but in the context of the game are expected to be regarded as heroes. This inherent tension is, IME, responsible for about 50% at least of paladin and other alignment threads.

QFT

Let's face it, the stock adventure of get hired to go into someone's home and kill everyone you find there is pretty definitively evil, from a certain viewpoint. Does it really matter that you are killing orcs, or trolls or dryads? Kill stuff and take its loot has been the basis of D&D for a very long time. And that really doesn't jive with the definition of good all that well.

 

[Sir Brennen]

When talking about 4E, I think a big part of the change has to do with how alignment affects the game mechanically, not necessarily to try and make it more morally ambiguous. And by that I mean, tossing out "Detect Evil", "Know Alignment", etc. Things which can essentially hose a plot.

Edit: And I agree that a "strict code" of behavior for each alignment would also be a mistake. It seems to me that 2nd and 3rd Editions both had extensive text dedicated to alignment in the PHB, and yet we still end up with long threads debating the concepts.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Why do people think that the lack of alignment on this card is something significant? The miniature already has an alignment assigned to it through the miniatures rules, including a logo on the card and an alignment code on the base. Perhaps it is eliminated from the card due to efficiency?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Why do people think that the lack of alignment on this card is something significant? The miniature already has an alignment assigned to it through the miniatures rules, including a logo on the card and an alignment code on the base. Perhaps it is eliminated from the card due to efficiency?

I'm going off of the OP's second reason for this thread - that the designers themselves have stated that alignment will be downplayed in the upcoming edition.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Myself, instead of alignment, I like the Taint and Honor rules from UA.

 

[Nifft]

Honestly, I'd rather go back to the old Basic/Expert single axis alignment. Lawful (as expressed as an impulse towards organization) and Chaotic works pretty well for describing most actions. If you remove the very loaded terms of good and evil from the mix, a lot of alignment problems go away.

I'd buy that.

I remember Elves being Chaotic and Orcs being Lawful ("... terribly Lawful, like Vogons", as one DM explained it to me).

Cheers, -- N

 

[cougent]

D&D isn't about creating the "ideal team to face the challenges." It's about people playing the characters they want to play.

I could not disagree with you more on that statement unqualified. It has been my experience that players must come to some basic agreements from the start or else you end up with total chaos that no one enjoys... even though they may be playing the character they want to play.

I can't imagine D&D without alignment, one of the many 4E concepts that is totally confusing to me. I will wait and see how they try to pull it off, but just cannot wrap my brain around it at this time.

 

[BBQ]

I enjoy having alignment in my game, mostly because if I don't, the players turn into hideously immoral mercenaries. For example, in the Star Wars roleplaying game (not Saga Edition- haven't had a chance to get to it...), they took it upon themselves to round up a group of Ewoks (just because they had the power to) and attempt to wax them. D20 modern? they hooked up with a bunch of Yakuza and took over Tokyo. D20 modern again, they became hitmen-for-hire and killed hundreds of good people (they also fought off an entire SWAT team and escaped). I find alignment is necessary to my game, otherwise, the players go ape.

 

[frankthedm]

Hypothetical question 1)
You, ptolemy18, wish to play an evil PC. All the other players want it to be a non-evil game, ie no evil PCs. What do you do?

Play an evil character who carefully hides his alignment from the other PCs. Should the other players find out the Main villain is IN the party, then it is PVPPP time.

Preempting this by killing the party in it's sleep will earn you, the player, major douche-bag points among the other players unless done very carefully. Doing so will also lead to the DM issuing a 'No Evil PC' decree.

Hypothetical question 2)
Same as above but the DM feels the same way as the other players.

If the DM is being honest he issues a 'No Evil PC' decree. If he is not being honest, "Karma" kills the character before his time.