Alignment changes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not at all.

I was having a really bad day yesterday, and coupled with my utter disdain for the 4e alignment system (IMO, the absolute worst part of 4e - I wish they'd just dropped it entirely), I went for the most extreme and ridiculous interpretation of the RAW that I could go for. It wasn't until just after making my second post that I thought to myself, "hang on delericho, you're being an idiot."

I think the interpretation I went for is just about supportable within the RAW, but you really have to stretch to get there. Basically, it's built on the complete absence of anything about changing alignments in the rules, or any explicitly-stated requirement that characters should follow their alignments (or change alignment if they do not). Couple that with the statement in the Paladin class description that states that once a Paladin is made, he is a Paladin forever, and there it is.

But, as I said, it is an extreme and ridiculous interpretation.

While I give you XP for recognizing your behavior as bad, I wonder how often this happens in discussions and if people fail to see how this can actually lead to a unfruitful and unnecessarily loaded discussions!
[/META]

 

[Obryn]

You know, I've run several games without an alignment system in place. The most memorable was a very long-running Arcana Evolved campaign... Alignment is kind of a silly constraint, and frankly most of my players would care less if I told them something like, "OK, you're evil now!"

With that said, the way I handled that long-running campaign was by acknowledging that every action had its consequences. The good often returned good, and the evil often returned evil. For example, one of the PCs - a Champion of Justice - determined that the government of a city was corrupt. During conversation with a quixotic dragon, he happened to mention this. As a result, the dragon conquered the city and its leadership was deposed, putting the party squarely into the Dragon-Giant conflict.

Later on, the party ran into the deposed leader - who had been a Champion of Knowledge when they last met him. And now, he was a Champion of Justice devoted to righting the wrong the party had done to him.


...but okay, enough of my own campaign stories. The real question will become - What comes of the Orc Chieftain? Will they kill him? If so, perhaps he has relatives who will be visited by his shade. Perhaps his shade itself will come to curse the characters. Will they let him go? Well, Gruumsh could always another angry, eyeless priest with a grudge against non-orcs.

Actions have consequences. Work with the consequences, not with the alignments - your players will take better to this than to beating over the head with the alignment stick.

-O

 

[Umbran]

Alignment is kind of a silly constraint, and frankly most of my players would care less if I told them something like, "OK, you're evil now!"

Yes, but then, there's the question of when, if ever, it is a constraint. I suggest that outside of class limitations, it isn't, and never has been. The words "You're Lawful good, so you can't do that!" are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the system - that alignment is the result of actions, not the cause of them.

And, as for the class limitations - if you want powers from a particular deity, you darn well better constrain yourself to behavior that deity finds acceptable. For others, you have to go a bit farther to justify the constraint, but not terribly so.

 

[Varis]

alignment is the result of actions, not the cause of them.

Good point.

And, as for the class limitations - if you want powers from a particular deity, you darn well better constrain yourself to behavior that deity finds acceptable. For others, you have to go a bit farther to justify the constraint, but not terribly so.

True.

Alright, thanks for the feedback on this one, its helped me judge the importance (or should I say, the lack of importance) of alignment.