Alignment changes ...

[DamnedChoir]

This reminds me, sadly, of the time one of my players made a Paladin in 3E.

He kept using Detect Evil on people, and then, if they were evil, he would kill them. After a while I started penalizing him for this, but he kept arguing with me that they were evil, his holy powers ALL work against evil, so he was RIGHT to kill that greedy bartender, or thief, because his +Charisma damage said so.

After a while I got him to tone it down. This time, whenever he got in a fight with someone and won, he used detect evil on them, if they were evil, he coup de gra'd them. Same problem, he saw it as his holy duty to rid evil from the world, even if they're just humans (or in this case, Dwarves)

Eventually, he was just using it as an excuse to kill rather than rely on diplomacy or have to take prisoners. Really, though, where does one draw the line between Lawful Good, and Lawful Evil? Paradoxically, he seems to be somewhere in between, but he's definately not Lawful Neutral, either.

Goblins are chaotic evil, is killing goblin children a good act, knowing they will just slaughter innocent townsfolk later? You get a bonus to hit and damage against them with smite, right?

 

[DaveMage]

This reminds me, sadly, of the time one of my players made a Paladin in 3E.

He kept using Detect Evil on people, and then, if they were evil, he would kill them. After a while I started penalizing him for this, but he kept arguing with me that they were evil, his holy powers ALL work against evil, so he was RIGHT to kill that greedy bartender, or thief, because his +Charisma damage said so.

After a while I got him to tone it down. This time, whenever he got in a fight with someone and won, he used detect evil on them, if they were evil, he coup de gra'd them. Same problem, he saw it as his holy duty to rid evil from the world, even if they're just humans (or in this case, Dwarves)

Eventually, he was just using it as an excuse to kill rather than rely on diplomacy or have to take prisoners. Really, though, where does one draw the line between Lawful Good, and Lawful Evil? Paradoxically, he seems to be somewhere in between, but he's definately not Lawful Neutral, either.

Goblins are chaotic evil, is killing goblin children a good act, knowing they will just slaughter innocent townsfolk later? You get a bonus to hit and damage against them with smite, right?

A paladin & his alignment - what a great idea for a thread.

Seriously, to answer your questions, where you draw the line is up to you as DM. If you don't want him playing that type of paladin, have the gods revoke his powers until he atones. You control the horizontal, you control the vertical, ya know?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

With no mention of the law/chaos axis, does anyone think that the nine alignments of D&D are gone?

It seems that way. It's not unexpected given the continued misuse and misunderstanding of alignment, even among the designers. It has NEVER been properly explained as to what it's purpose is or HOW and WHY it is to be used. THAT is what the problem really is with alignment - it's real use and definition have been in playtesting throughout every edition.

I confess that even though I never really had issues with alignment and its use, I rather like the suggested course in 4E of simplifying its definition, giving it a clearer purpose in the game and most of all removing alignment-related spells and effects from the rules. However, I'm also looking forward to the possibility of "alignment" threads being more along the lines of, "The PC's are always mercenary, amoral, violent scum! Why can't I get them to act like good guys?" just so I can point back at the way alignment used to be and saying, "I TOLD you so..."

 

[Simplicity]

Neutral was always kind of a wonky alignment. There's "neutral" (i.e. unaligned) people who really don't care about the world in black/white terms. They are mostly self-interested, but really just trying to get by, not cause pain to others.

Then there's NEUTRAL (i.e. like a druid) who feels that every thing should be balanced. Good must not win. Evil must not win. The struggle must continue. That sort of thing. But this group of people is probably a lot smaller than the group above. And it certainly seems weird to group them together.

I predict a Neutral alignment in a upcoming product to flesh out those in the 2nd category.

 

[kennew142]

Very happy about these changes.

Let those who want to work to be GOOD be good, those who want to work to be EVIL be evil, and let everybody else do as they will. Personally, I think "unaligned" will help players create more complex characters without the 16 ton weight of alignment hanging over their heads.

The changes make me very happy as well. However, I will probably replace the entire alignment system with something akin to the D20 modern allegiances. I have become fatigued with the current concept of alignment.

 

[The Shadow]

Then there's NEUTRAL (i.e. like a druid) who feels that every thing should be balanced. Good must not win. Evil must not win. The struggle must continue. That sort of thing. But this group of people is probably a lot smaller than the group above. And it certainly seems weird to group them together.

I'd rather just see the whole idea of "Balance" just vanish. It has never, IMAO, really made any sense at all.

If the universe would not be a better place if "Good" won a total victory, then why call it "Good" to start with? No sane non-outsider *wants* the forces of supernatural Evil to win. Neutrals are the kind who say, "I got mine!" and leave the heavy lifting to others. Even your typical evil human (not counting clerics and blackguards) wouldn't want the bad guys to totally win. At the very least, that'd leave you with a society with no suckers to exploit! And at worst, it would mean that all humans, no matter how 'evil', are slaves, cannon-fodder, and food. (EDIT: Ironically enough, I just realized this means that there *is* a niche for Balance after - among *evil* people! They wouldn't want Good to totally win either. But no vestige of the idea that Balancers are 'True Neutral'.)

Balance makes more sense in a Moorcockian framework of Law and Chaos, where both sides are bastards. (That was the main take-home point of the Elric books for me - neither side is worth supporting.) But balance between Good and Evil? I just can't see it.

 

[Fifth Element]

TD&D is supposed to be a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist and you can detect such a thing via spells. However, Evil people can act good all they want, since alignment isn't a straightjacket.

No, because a character who acts good a significant amount is not of Evil alignment. He is of Good alignment. Alignment describes a character. It does not prescribe actions.

And that's the problem. Alignment is supposed to describe the way someone acts. But they don't have to act that way. So it doesn't mean anything at all unless they act the way their alignment describes.

But how does a character act if he's not acting how he acts? Alignment is an overall description of a character's usual tendencies. A NG character does not have to perform the "NG action" each time a choice has to be made. But if he generally does NG things, he's NG.

I agree that the use of alignment in spells and magic items mucks this up. But in terms of alignments describing characters, there's no conflict, no circular reasoning.

 

[Fifth Element]

Alignment is perhaps the rule that is most improperly used in D&D. For decades, poor GMs have used it like a hammer, and for every bad experience that comes from "Lawful Stupid" or "Chaotic Crazy", the impression that Alignment is a straightjacket is reinforced.

Unfortunately that stems from early D&D/AD&D, where an "alignment shift" had serious negative consequences. Those poor GMs were just following Gygax's suggestions.

 

[Klaus]

I'd rather just see the whole idea of "Balance" just vanish. It has never, IMAO, really made any sense at all.

If the universe would not be a better place if "Good" won a total victory, then why call it "Good" to start with? No sane non-outsider *wants* the forces of supernatural Evil to win. Neutrals are the kind who say, "I got mine!" and leave the heavy lifting to others. Even your typical evil human (not counting clerics and blackguards) wouldn't want the bad guys to totally win. At the very least, that'd leave you with a society with no suckers to exploit! And at worst, it would mean that all humans, no matter how 'evil', are slaves, cannon-fodder, and food. (EDIT: Ironically enough, I just realized this means that there *is* a niche for Balance after - among *evil* people! They wouldn't want Good to totally win either. But no vestige of the idea that Balancers are 'True Neutral'.)

Balance makes more sense in a Moorcockian framework of Law and Chaos, where both sides are bastards. (That was the main take-home point of the Elric books for me - neither side is worth supporting.) But balance between Good and Evil? I just can't see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_yang

There are some qualities to the human being that are inherently Evil, but are nonetheless needed to round out an individual. Greed is bad, but a small portion of it makes you cherish your achievements and strive for more. Hatred is bad, but a small portion of it is necessary to rile up a person to stand up against something (like an injustice).

 

[Hussar]

For one thing, Unaligned would nicely describe animals and mindless constructs.

While I understand the idea of Neutral in the balance sense, how one works to achieve that balance would certainly have alignment implications. For example, a Neutral (balance) druid who works with a group of good heroes for 20 levels, constantly righting wrongs and making the world a better place, isn't really Neutral (balance) anymore. He's probably good.

Neutral (balance) has never really worked, IMHO, in game. It sounds good in novels, but, it doesn't really function at the table.