I can't do without the 9 alignments

[Agamon]

Alignment? What alignment? The character builder forces my players to choose something, so it says Unaligned, but officially, alignment doesn't exist in my games. And I wouldn't have it any other way, I've hated alignment since day 1.

 

[DracoSuave]

Such as?

There's a couple weapons here and there. Given that it's mostly monsters that it cares about, there's nothing to really worry about for players.

Other games get away with no alignments just fine. It all depends on the type of game you run.

 

[DracoSuave]

See, my protection from evil spell works against them!

In BECMI that actually works. Evil meant 'hostile intentions' so an evil character could use it to confound a party of heroes.

Good/Evil didn't actually exist as alignments in BECMI, just Law, Neutrality, and Chaos.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

They're very, very few, but they are there. There's a paladin PP power that does more damage against evil things, there's a helmet that can only be used by LG/G characters, and in one of the Scales of War adventures

Spoiler

there's a vein of elemental power that enhances the attacks of CE creatures and diminishes all others'.

Heh, my DM decided my wizard got the benefit of that last one. I had attempted to channel the energies of the dark gods in a recent ritual, so I guess I can't blame him too much.

Nice to know. I hadn't heard of any alignment effect until now.

 

[webrunner]

They didn't get rid of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good

They're just called "Good" and "Evil" now. "Good" is "Non-lawful Good" and evil is "Non-chaotic evil"

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

I largely agree with Mal
As I pointed out on similar threadon WOTC forums, in many D&D worlds, Evil, Good, Law and Chaos are REAL forces.
Try arguing with a Balor about that Moral Relativism simply doesn't fly in most D&D settings. It's like saying "Hot" and "cold" don't exist.

I liked Maruts being absolute Lawful enforcers of universal laws. Why not? It's fantasy, not "Papers and Paychecks", I like playing heroes, not laywers, for goodness sake

So, far as I'm concerned, the 9 alignments still exist.

Oh, one point though, Mal:
Why would a drow NOT have Proteciton From Evil, hm? Who do they fight the most? Certainly not paladins!
No, they fight other drow and eivl creatures most of the time, thus, they damn well better have Protection From Evil!
Just that since most drow cannot have Good as as their Domain, they can't get the bonus protection spells for that domain, is all.
So in my games, the one spell you can bet many evil creatures have is Protection From Fellow Backstabbing Slimeballs

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Why would a drow NOT have Proteciton From Evil, hm?

Because protection from evil in 3.5 was a [Good] spell and an evil priest is banned from casting it.

Of course, a Lolth Priestess would love to cast protection from evil. But whatcha gonna do. Can't do it if you are evil yourself (even if you think you are not).

 

[Carpe DM]

Good D&D mechanics are suggestive and cinematic. Simulating alignment is hard because real morality is complicated. Just as simulating a sword fight is the last thing the D&D rules want to do, so simulating morality is not a good storytelling experience for the adventure genre. There are, of course, other genres. (As an aside, a famous comment about real-world sword-fights is that one combatant dies fast, the other slowly.)

So while alignment is not meant to simulate ethics or morality, it does do a decent job of stimulating morals vs. ethics debates, which is the stuff of cinema. The tension between getting the bad guy and doing it by the book. All the dorm-room agonizing about torture that goes on in the 24 series.

In short, the 9-align system is useful for helping the DM frame ethics vs. morals debates, system vs. individuallity conflicts, in a way that fit neatly into our literary/oral pastime. Just as a series of 10X10 rooms is really a plot device, so is a matrix of 3x3 alignments.

Based on this analysis, I dislike the 4E alignment system precisely because it eliminates most of the serious moral / ethical tension that alignment, as a storytelling tool, evoked. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good were the most important alignments for DMs and players, respectively, for a reason: they enshrine tension between ethics and morals, between freedom to act and acting correctly.

Any alignment system is a trope. The 4E alignment system is a failed trope.

warmest regards,

Carpe

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Because protection from evil in 3.5 was a [Good] spell and an evil priest is banned from casting it.

Of course, a Lolth Priestess would love to cast protection from evil. But whatcha gonna do. Can't do it if you are evil yourself (even if you think you are not).

But a drow wizard CAN cast it, and thus you see where D&D alignment has a problem in play!
Alignment is serious in D&D, but, it shouldn't trump common sense, and for characters is a general guideline, not a straight jacket.

I don't see whty Prot From Evil is a "good" spell, it's an abjuraiton, it can be good, but does it use "good", does it summon a good being etc?

Only things like modrons, demons etc are "hard wired" to certian alignments.

Mortals can be tempted..they can be heroic...they can have odd characteristics (a pious thief, an aesetic wizard etc).

As a DM, I love alignments, nice 2 letter acronym I can use to get a rough clue as to how a creature will likely act. But, how it WILL act is up to me and the history I like for the creature.

No one says to a god though: "I'm an atheist!" cause the result wlil be very, very squishy!

"Next time someone asks you if you're a god, Ray, you say YES!!" lol

 

[Mad Hamish]

the problem is, the old system assumed that the only champions of a faith that could be classed as paladins, were the Goodly Deities... How is that possible? Shouldn't there have been Paladins for the not-so-good deities? (not Anti-Paladins or blackguards, because both of those were twists stating that it used to be a goodly knight, twisted to become vile and all that)

The evil gods had all sorts of servents. Have a look through the Monster Manual.
Not to mention various Prestige Classes that were pretty much evil only (various Necromancer builds were published as I recall).

They didn't (in core) have a base PC class that was evil only but D&D has always been designed with the basic idea of players being the heroes.

If they were really going for moral absolutist in their methodology, then there would have been some form of this character that was allowed to NOT be LG... Instead, there were no paladins of gods who were merely NG, or LN... Only the highly righteous Gods could have TRUE champions for their cause...

No, the system did not make sense... they had contradictions within almost all parts of the system...

Read the rules. They are moral absolutist in their approach to alignment.