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

[Zogmo]

At least alignment is being addressed.

They're changing so much in the new edition I'm glad this isn't one of the things not revised.

Perhaps it's still there but given a better definition of it's role and a hopefully clearer examples of how it should be used to not be the limitation it's taken for.

 

[BryonD]

But the thing is, in the Spined Devil stats there is no mention of alignment whatsoever – Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil).

hmmm....

It is hard to know how exactly this fits with the quotes Zogmo listed later.
They seem to clearly state that alignment will still be there.
I don't have a problem with alignment going away. But I also don't have a problem with it staying. I'm in big favor of it staying but being a lot less pervasive.
If alignment stays, then I can't imagine devils not being evil. So it may just not be information that made the stat card cut. Though even that does seem to blow a hole in my subtype theory....

 

[Kintara]

I'm pretty sure the one on the left is the 4th Edition version. Yep, Evil.

 

[BryonD]

Never mind

 

[lukelightning]

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

However, alignment can also represent your inner nature/personality which are independant of actions. If you do a good thing for an evil reason that doesn't make you good. DMs can't monitor the internal world of a player's imagination; how am I supposed to know if my player is saving the prince in distress (I'm tired of princesses...) out of heroic goodness or out of greed?

 

[mhensley]

I'm pretty sure the one on the left is the 4th Edition version. Yep, Evil.

Yep, but that's also the DDM version of the stats - not the rpg version.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I prefer to get rid of alignments in my games. Spells that target based on alignment instead target based on creature type (i.e. protection from fiends, elementals, undead, fey, etc instead of protection from chaos/evil/good/law). Paladins can detect/smite undead and fiends instead of evil. I think this makes alot more sense than alignments, and I hope they do something like it in 4e. I don't mind alignments being used as an overall gauge of a character's personality, but I hate all of the magic that interacts with it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Possibly mildly off topic, but 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."

I swear that half the alignment complaints I see are based on the idea of "your character can't do that because of his alignment". (The rest are mostly based on differing opinions on what is good, evil, lawful or chaotic, and what this implies in a world with objective alignment forces.)

Do they complain because the DM or fellow player telling them they can't do that due to their alignment, or do they complain because the DM has shifted their alignment due to a [blatant] action?

I'm the kind of DM that would not tell them you can't but occasionally asked, "Are you sure you want to do that (Y/N)?"

Occasionally.

I can forgive the petty things like little white lies but blatant action that is outside of one's alignment deserves an alignment shift. Sometimes I don't tell them.

 

[coyote6]

I'm pretty sure the one on the left is the 4th Edition version. Yep, Evil.

As mhensley said, those are the DDM stats, not the D&D stats.

These are the RPG stats:

The top card is 4e -- no Evil.

 

[Kintara]

The top card is 4e -- no Evil.

Hmm, and yet they've said alignment is in. What does it mean if both are true? Does that mean that monsters never have alignments assumed for them, at least not on the card? I mean, if anything would have an alignment, I would think a devil would....