Forked Thread: Alignment *huh* What is it good for?

[Andor]

Forked from: The Misalignment of the Gods

Just get rid of alignment.

Let's entertain conjecture. Why did they retain alignment in 4e? Why not use the allegience system from d20 modern? Why use a lobotomized version of the WHFRP alignment system?

 

[Desdichado]

Why use any alignment system at all? It adds very little to the game.

I think the reason they kept an abbreviated one was to 1) abbreviated because of the headaches it apparently caused who knows how many gamers, yet 2) retained because too many players out there need alignment to function as a sort of "team jersey" or "white and black hat" function. Without alignment, how else do you know who it's socially acceptable to murder on sight?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The reasons they kept it?

#1: Alignment is good D&D branding. "Lawful Good" and "Chaotic Evil" have seeped out into culture at large and are identifiable with D&D.

#2: Alignment is useful as an aid to characterization, both for PC's and for villains. In a few words, it gives you a shorthand motive for everything the creature might do or choose to do.

#3: Alignment reinforces the heroic Good vs. Evil Cosmic Conflict, which is deep at the core of D&D.


They made it easy to get rid of, but they obviously like what it does.

 

[KingCrab]

I wish they had dropped it. The idea of 'good and evil' doesn't really make sense to me. Many groups that are considered evil in real life think of themselves as good. Most gaming groups can't even unanimously decide where the lines are (hence the millions of 'the paladin in my game did this/should we reward or punish him' type threads all over the internet.)

Everyone has their own individual ideas of what good and evil are. Best to keep alignment out of the game altogether.

 

[Particle_Man]

I think they kept alignment for various reasons, some of which are outlined above, but also for 4e in particular the following seem to be emphasized:

a) A metagame conceit to try to keep certain players from being dicks by discouraging them from playing characters more likely to be dickish. And even if you are among the few who can roleplay evil without annoying other party members, most people new to the game who try evil characters usually play Evil Annoying.

b) To show demonstratively that the good guys don't always agree, but can usually get along somehow (LG, G).

c) To show that there is Evil (E) and then there is Batshit Crazy Psycho Evil that doesn't think of the consequences (CE). Gruumsh likes destruction (and if everything is destroyed, then what?). Lolth actively works against the interest of most of "her" people, the Drow (who basically are trying to organize, but are set up by their priesthood to fight each other at least as much as any other enemies). A Certain Other CE God (and all demons) wants nothing less than to destroy Everything, including perhaps Itself. Thus you can sometimes, unwillingly, be forced into an alliance of convenience with some Evil entities, but there are others that are so far beyond the pale that we are talking the Reavers from Firefly/Serenity.

d) To show that most gods/people don't play the alignment game, but rather have their own agendas perpendicular to alignment concerns (Erathis vs. Melora, for example).

Other than that, alignment has been reduced greatly in influence in 4e. 1st ed AD&D had actual alignment languages. 3rd ed D&D had creatures literally made of Evil or Good and/or Law or Chaos in the way that people are made of Matter/Energy in the real world.

I personally think they have struck the right balance. For those who like alignment, it is still present in some form, and could be expanded. For those that don't like alignment it drops out sooooo easily. Just replace Cleric and Paladin starting alignments with the specific commands of the god(s) they are devoted to, which commands are handily associated with each god. Nothing else has to be done.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Not much.

1) Tradition.
2) A way to quickly describe a character's personality. Just as class describes a character's abilities and level describes power. 1st level LN rogue. 15th level CE barbarian. That short string tells you a surprisingly large amount about an individual.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wish they had dropped it. The idea of 'good and evil' doesn't really make sense to me. Many groups that are considered evil in real life think of themselves as good. Most gaming groups can't even unanimously decide where the lines are (hence the millions of 'the paladin in my game did this/should we reward or punish him' type threads all over the internet.)

It's very, very simple.

I'm good. You're neutral. He's evil.

 

[Psion]

Let's entertain conjecture. Why did they retain alignment in 4e? Why not use the allegience system from d20 modern? Why use a lobotomized version of the WHFRP alignment system?

So I'm not the only one who saw the WHFRP resemblance.

Really, I don't see the point. Stripping the law/chaos axis or ditching it entirely, I would have understood (wouldn't do it myself for D&D, tho). But I don't see the point of the 4e version.

 

[Agamon]

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

 

[questing gm]

In 3.x, alignment was a creative and immersive character building tool because of the two axis (law vs. chaos & good vs. evil) involve in determing your character's alignment. Neutral alignments could have been used for the undecided or players who didn't want their characters to stand in either side of the black & white areas while prefering to be on the grey side. This created relatively complex characterisation as different mixes of the two axis generated different personalities and behaviors expected from the character and served as a guideline for players on how to roleplay their characters (and a guideline for DMs on how their characters would act).

Alignments back then even had a mechanical function (for spells in particular).

In 4E, now that they have downsized the alignment mix and with the PoL setting design and the high heroic fantasy that the gameplay has become, it seems to me that the alignment is pointing toward creating stereotypes.

Wizard: 'Why kill this guy?'
Paladin: 'Because the cleric of the death cult is evil'

It reduces the complexity of characterisation, indepth psychology and character building. High action kick butt adventure where heroes defeat their enemies for the sake of it means more fun and achievement for players. Humanitarian arguments on the table in mid game is not for 4E.

Simply put,
3.xE alignment system = good as an immersive storytelling tool (both DMs and players) with mechanical functions.

4E alignment system = good as a quick and dirty reason/excuse to kick butt and have fun (both also for DMs and players).