Alignment in D&DN...

[Janaxstrus]

While I appreciate the 4e attempt to simplify alignment, I have players effectively playing CG and LE alignments that would be better described under the original system.

I find the previously mentioned attitude that 4e has been discontinued therefore everything about it is stupid and a failure both dumb and unhelpful. Based on that flawed logic couldn't the same be said of every edition?

If 4E was healthy and a great system, it wouldn't be going away after 4 years.
Paizo is eating their lunch.

Not everything is bad about it, but it's by no means a good system. If you want to take bits and pieces, sure, but it should be the absolute last system considered for any sort of basis of a new edition.

 

[RHGreen]

This is kind of what I was thinking when I wanted a more open social skill design.

For a start off I hate alignments for reasons I'm sure more than enough people have written in the past.

I also believe more in the carrot than the stick. Rather than have penalties for not doing something a player should be rewards for doing something.

You could have all the usual alignments - Law - Chaos / Good - Evil. These could be societal skill groups.

Honest Trait would come under Lawful. Perhaps Good also - but white lies would come under Good. When a woman asks you if their bum looks big in this - you could opt for Good (Diplomacy) = 'No of course it doesn't' or Lawful (Honest) 'No. Your bum makes your bum look big.'

So with rewards you might have something like Good (Charity) and if you give money to the poor, and you are a Cleric, you might get extra healing. Or a fighter might get reputation increase - followers, heralds singing about them, etc.

Choose Alignment grouped Traits. Mechanics reward them when they use them. Of course if they do the opposite they loose the benefits. Make the benefits too good too loose. A power gamer cleric would be handing out gold like a lunatic. Imagine it. A power gamer power roleplaying.

 

[Ramen]

I always preferred the rules cyclopedia version of alignment. Lawful for those who have some code of honor and chaotic for those who generally don't. God and evil was used to detect if people had helpful harmful our neutral intent to word the players.

Out always made more sense t to me then innate qualities of melicious or beneficial qualities.

Sent from tapatalk

 

[Essenti]

If 4E was healthy and a great system, it wouldn't be going away after 4 years.
Paizo is eating their lunch.

Not everything is bad about it, but it's by no means a good system. If you want to take bits and pieces, sure, but it should be the absolute last system considered for any sort of basis of a new edition.

Ah... 4e was closest to the original alignments that existed, prior to the 9 alignment breakout with AD&D, 2e, and 3e. Alignment in this case is not really a good veil for your clear dislike of 4e, there are other aspects you could choose to rally behind, but the alignment issue is not it. I understand 4e was disliked by plenty, and paizo was the new way forward for some. Heck, I like pathfinder, it's a good system. There are still many fans who liked their version over Pathfinder, be it whatever version including 4e.

If pathfinder was also a golden and perfect system, there wouldn't be so much interest in 5e. You are providing very passive aggressive arguments about 4e, to claim there are aspects worth using, but in the same post that it should be the last place to look? That is an obstinately close-minded approach that I sincerely hope WoTC avoids.

Is 4e the best edition ever, nope. But I do want WoTC to use whatever makes sense and works to make the game feel and play like D&D while being a game I actually want to play. I don't care which edition a piece of the core mechanics comes from, as long as it works and works well.

 

[Odhanan]

I would never do it just to make the game stand different. If there weren't a good reason, then it would make no sense. My point is that I would not stand up a series of sacred cows for no reason other than just because. The obvious example is this thread and my first reply on alignment. Get rid of it. I offered a counter-proposal to what you currently see as alignment. Another example could be ability scores. Do we really need all six? Do we need four defenses or can we get away with fewer (or add more)? I don't have answers for these, but the point is that through a reasonable design, each thing should be considered. Nothing should be dropped and the cost of revising certain sacred cows may obviously be much higher than others (dropping an ability score, for example, has a huge repercussion on backward's compatibility, while alignment really doesn't).

Modifying any of these in depth is a losing proposal. Next is about unifying the fan base, bringing the fans of all editions together. Not about creating further divide.

As you can very well see with this thread, there is no consensus on getting rid of any of these defining elements of D&D. Therefore, modifying them would only create further strife.

 

[Mattachine]

As you can very well see with this thread, there is no consensus on getting rid of any of these defining elements of D&D. Therefore, modifying them would only create further strife.

By your own statement, there is already strife. Modifying these elements might resolve some strife and create new strife. That might be move the discussion towards consensus, though.


As for alignments, I like the 9 alignment system, except I also feel an unaligned option should exist, and that MANY creatures and NPCs should have that unaligned option. Not everyone should be on one of the cosmic teams; lots of people and creatures are merely spectators.

I'm not a fan of most alignment-based effects, either. I also remember with distaste the uses of detect evil/know alignment/etc in most editions of the game.

 

[tlantl]

I'm in favor of the nine alignments being a core feature of the game.

I think they should be used to determine how certain classes are played.

I would really like for the druid, ranger, and rogue to return to their former alignment requirements and suffer tangible penalties if the player moves away from the tenets of their ethical and moral choices.

In the past I've had arguments with my friends over the details of the various alignments. I'm sure my interpretation of those rules will likely come under fire again, but I believe the alignment rules serve an important role in the game and removing, or neutering them takes away from the experience.

 

[Kynn]

If 4E was healthy and a great system, it wouldn't be going away after 4 years.
Paizo is eating their lunch.

Not everything is bad about it, but it's by no means a good system. If you want to take bits and pieces, sure, but it should be the absolute last system considered for any sort of basis of a new edition.

This is a ridiculous argument. Clearly the failure or success of 4e was not predicated on whether it had 5, 9, 3, or 0 alignments.

 

[Kynn]

As for alignments, I like the 9 alignment system, except I also feel an unaligned option should exist, and that MANY creatures and NPCs should have that unaligned option. Not everyone should be on one of the cosmic teams; lots of people and creatures are merely spectators.

Can you break down the difference between "unaligned" and "neutral" in your view?

 

[Kynn]

I would really like for the druid, ranger, and rogue to return to their former alignment requirements and suffer tangible penalties if the player moves away from the tenets of their ethical and moral choices.

Which specific tangible penalties do you have in mind?

E.g., under what circumstances would a rogue be penalized for alignment infraction and what form would that penalty take?