D&D 4E Alignment hint about 4E...or not?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I try to, but man, what a pain in the backside. Alignment is fundamentally tied into the 3.5 game. I sure hope 4E makes alignment a footnote on the character sheet rather than a label that would not be out of place hovering over the PC's head in glowing letters.

Outside of the paladin's Detect Important NPC ability, I don't think it infringes that much on the rest of the game, other than the Protection spells being WAY overpowered in terms of preventing possession, etc.

I think, with those abilities changed, alignment is already a footnote except for Blood War fans.

 

[coyote6]

Outside of the paladin's Detect Important NPC ability, I don't think it infringes that much on the rest of the game, other than the Protection spells being WAY overpowered in terms of preventing possession, etc.

There are quite a few abilities, items, spells, etc. -- besides the protection from/magic circle against, there's the holy smites, words, auras, & their equivalents, plus variously-aligned weapon properties (holy, etc.), smite [alignment] abilities, DR, etc. You could run a game where those don't matter, but they come up fairly frequently IME.

 

[Gundark]

Those arguments already happens, and they are more problematic in a system where your alignment is restricted by your class. "This is against your alignment, you lose your power" is worse than "this is LE rather than LG... You feel another voice in your head when you pray".

Which is why Allegiances might work better

 

[Kintara]

Hmm, I think Law/Chaos might be gone. It could be subsumed into an allegiance system, but I don't know. I'm thinking maybe they are leaving it at Good and Evil. So you're either Good, or Evil, or maybe not aligned or Neutral.

Perhaps alignments only survive as subtypes. So Angels would be Good, but most mortals wouldn't register either way. So Good and Evil exist as real forces, but don't have much practical importance to mortal life (unless you deal with demonic or celestial or similar beings). Maybe mortals can become truly Evil by going through some sort of transformative process or utterly condemning or devoting yourself to it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A system where alignment is determined after the character begins play is problematic, probably more so than the current system.

There could be several arguements between players and DMs over what behaviour deserves a certain alignment label.

Why an argument? The player isn't being punished (unless they're a cleric or paladin).

there's the holy smites, words, auras, & their equivalents, plus variously-aligned weapon properties (holy, etc.), smite [alignment] abilities, DR, etc. You could run a game where those don't matter, but they come up fairly frequently IME.

Some of these came up often in games I've been in, but I would be delighted if holy blast spells and holy/unholy/etc weapons vanished.

 

[Cadfan]

Why an argument? The player isn't being punished (unless they're a cleric or paladin).

Technically a true statement, but its really bleedin' annoying when your DM declares that your character lost his "good" alignment because you made what you thought was a decent decision in tough circumstances.

I don't mind the DM being the ultimate arbiter of the game rules, but I like to draw the line at the system appointing him philosopher-king.

 

[pemerton]

I really, really wish that if 4e retains alignments, the designers put the following text in big, bold lettering in the section discussing it:

"YOUR ACTIONS DETERMINE YOUR ALIGNMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND."

Seriously, the reason people think this way is because of class restrictions. If a player wants to be a paladin, he must be lawful good. Right there, alignment is dictated to the player and his actions need to conform to it or he'll be punished.

What he said. For Clerics, Paladins, Druids, Bards, Barbarians and Monks alignment does determine (permissible) actions. That's more than half the classes in the PHB (though maybe not half the characters actually played in the game).

Why an argument? The player isn't being punished (unless they're a cleric or paladin).

Because it is a type of punishment - not within the game, but in the social enivorment at the table - to be told that your PC is evil when you believe that s/he is not. It implies that there is something wrong with the player's moral judgement. When I want that sort of debate I go to a moral philosophy seminar, not a game.

 

[Ranger REG]

My theory is that alignment will exist but will no longer be tied into game mechanics. That has a lot of implications, but the absence of alignment from stat blocks and character sheets seems to point to just that.

That spells the end of the Holy Avenger sword, as well as the profane bonus type.

 

[Gargoyle]

That spells the end of the Holy Avenger sword, as well as the profane bonus type.

There are other ways to do the holy avenger, but I agree that if it's true the profane bonus is gone.

Edit: More significantly, IMO, it changes the paladin abilities in all sorts of ways. No detect evil and smite evil, for instance, and opens up the possibility of paladins of all sorts of alignments. Rather than bonuses against a particular alignment, they would have to have abilities that work differently.

 

[Gargoyle]

I think that's actually been explicitly stated somewhere, hasn't it? At least, I've been assuming this would be the case based on the stuff we've seen.

Hasn't been stated anywhere that I can find. As you say, I'm just inferring it from what (little) we've seen.