Alignment: pretty sure how it works

[TerraDave]

Ok, this is probably not a big revelation, but I think we know enough to say that in D&D 4ed there will be 5 alignments (or 4 plus none):

Lawfull
Chaotic
Good
Evil
Unaligned

So dudly-do-good is good, paladin-do-right is lawfull, big-pain-the-halfling-rogue is chaotic, and the-big-bad-villian is evil. But some PCs, and probably most NPCs (including many monsters, commoners, etc), normal, unaligned, beings.

Discuss.

 

[Abstraction]

From the news page:

Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine.

Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one.

Nine implies the nine alignments we have now, plus a tenth "unaligned" alignment that will probably cover most people and creatures but not something like a paladin.

 

[Xethreau]

I think that there will still be cross-alignments, but I think they are cutting "neutral." In its place, you are either Good, Lawful and Good, Lawful, Lawful and Evil, Evil, Evil and Chaotic, Chaotic, Chaotic and Good, or simply lack an alignment (unaligned).

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, but we also have "or". Lawfull or good. Not lawfull and/or good.

It may be possible to be Lawfull and good, but is know more of a special case. As in you can be good, be lawfull, be lawfull good, or something else.

EDIT: R. Angel basically just said the same thing.

 

[TerraDave]

We also now know that paladin's smitting (or at least what we have seen) is not linked to the alignment of the target.

So what does it do? From the information we have seen, you probably need to be aligned to be a paladin, and this may include some behavoral restrictions. Maybe you need alingment for some other classes or benefits. But could you still detect it, have attacks keyed off it, and so forth?

 

[CleverNickName]

Me: "Okay guys, choose your alignment."
All players, in unison: "We want to be unaligned, so we can do whatever we want!"
Me: *bangs head on table*

I never understood why players equate alignment with restriction. As if it were some sort of hard rule to follow, a list of dos and don'ts that they would be somehow forced to follow. It's nothing of the sort.

You want to play a paladin who is constantly drunk and spends his evenings at the local whorehouse? Fine. But be advised, the character you just described is not a paladin, it is a fighter who goes to church on occasion. The cool abilities that come with the paladin class are there by virtue of the character's devotion...remove the devotion, and you remove the source of his power. Alignment is not the issue.

You want to play a lawless monk who shuns the formulaic trainings of his dojo and learns new techniques on his own? Go ahead, be my guest. But you know, the character that you have described is not a monk...it is a fighter/rogue who fights bare-handed...a street fighter. The l33t skillz of the monk class are not there because the character wills them to be; the character must earn them through years of highly-structured training and self-discipline. No self-discipline, no nunchaku skills. Alignment is not the issue.

It's about character development. A lot of players want to skip it altogether and play with just a pile of numbers on paper. And there is nothing wrong with that; a lot of people only play D&D for the dice-rolling. Dice are fun, combat is exciting, and everyone wants to be able to do everything all the time with wild abandon. And you should be able to do what you like with your own game.

But WotC, please leave room in the PHB for the rest of us.

 

[Cadfan]

Me: "Okay guys, choose your alignment."
All players, in unison: "We want to be unaligned, so we can do whatever we want!"
Me: *bangs head on table*

I never understood why players equate alignment with restriction. As if it were some sort of hard rule to follow, a list of dos and don'ts that they would be somehow forced to follow. It's nothing of the sort.

You want to play a paladin who is constantly drunk and spends his evenings at the local whorehouse? Fine. But be advised, the character you just described is not a paladin, it is a fighter who goes to church on occasion. The cool abilities that come with the paladin class are there by virtue of the character's devotion...remove the devotion, and you remove the source of his power. Alignment is not the issue.

You want to play a lawless monk who shuns the formulaic trainings of his dojo and learns new techniques on his own? Go ahead, be my guest. But you know, the character that you have described is not a monk...it is a fighter/rogue who fights bare-handed...a street fighter. The l33t skillz of the monk class are not there because the character wills them to be; the character must earn them through years of highly-structured training and self-discipline. No self-discipline, no nunchaku skills. Alignment is not the issue.

It's about character development. A lot of players want to skip it altogether and play with just a pile of numbers on paper. And there is nothing wrong with that; a lot of people only play D&D for the dice-rolling. Dice are fun, combat is exciting, and everyone wants to be able to do everything all the time with wild abandon. And you should be able to do what you like with your own game.

But WotC, please leave room in the PHB for the rest of us.

How does adding in an "unaligned" option take room away from you and your game? If YOU want to play a paladin with a code that stops him from visiting brothels, what is stopping you? If YOU want to play a monk who has a highly disciplined dojo to which he answers, what is stopping you?

You say "please leave room in the PHB for the rest of us," but what you are describing is a desire that the game's mechanics coerce other people into roleplaying characters they way you believe is best.

PS- I happen to like both the wandering monk and the warrior who is broken, depressed, self destructive- but still a paladin, and still first into the breach when others are in danger.

 

[neceros]

I was hoping they'd get rid of ethical alignments all together.

I can't say everyone fits into one of the 9 alignments, and I don't believe alignments should be so strong. There should be Good, Evil and Unaligned.

Basically, having "Good" or "Evil" in your alignment means you are the epitome of that alignment (Vile / Exalted)

 

[Kesh]

Ok, this is probably not a big revelation, but I think we know enough to say that in D&D 4ed there will be 5 alignments (or 4 plus none):

Lawfull
Chaotic
Good
Evil
Unaligned

So dudly-do-good is good, paladin-do-right is lawfull, big-pain-the-halfling-rogue is chaotic, and the-big-bad-villian is evil. But some PCs, and probably most NPCs (including many monsters, commoners, etc), normal, unaligned, beings.

Discuss.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see where you're getting this from.

 

[CleverNickName]

How does adding in an "unaligned" option take room away from you and your game? If YOU want to play a paladin with a code that stops him from visiting brothels, what is stopping you? If YOU want to play a monk who has a highly disciplined dojo to which he answers, what is stopping you?

You say "please leave room in the PHB for the rest of us," but what you are describing is a desire that the game's mechanics coerce other people into roleplaying characters they way you believe is best.

I was talking about how some people (players, mostly) believe alignment to be some sort of restriction...not about class or character options. Many different kinds of characters are possible with the current alignment system, so the "unaligned" alignment is unnecessary.

The two examples I gave were characters in old campaigns that I have run...and the alignment worked just fine. I certainly was not trying to coerce anyone; if that was the impression I gave, I apologize.