LIfe Without Alignment

[Jhulae]

If I'm not mistaken, we have seen no reference to Law and Chaos in 4E so far, which probably means the distinction has been killed completely. Which would be a good thing too, because it was often very arbitrary. I remember reading and participating in quite a few discussion about it, and the general consensus was that most actions could be described as either law or chaos, depending on your justification.

About time, too. Law is not the opposite of Chaos. Law is the opposite of Anarchy. The opposite of Chaos is Order.

There can be a set of 'Chaotic' laws. Just becasuse there's Anarchy, doesn't mean people can't be Orderly.

"Law vs Chaos" has been misnomered for so long, it's about time to see it completely gone.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

About time, too. Law is not the opposite of Chaos. Law is the opposite of Anarchy. The opposite of Chaos is Order.

In the Multiversal setting of the author from whom the Law/Chaos axis was named- Michael Moorcock- Law=Order. Where Law dominates completely, there is no change, only the stagnation of eternal, unchanging Order.

 

[Agamon]

This is one of the big pluses of 4E for me. Even a couple weeks after 3E came out and people were joking about 4E, I would post that they better get rid of alignment as it stood in D&D then.

I just couldn't get it into the players heads what alignment was meant to be. And the alignement mechanics in the system didn't help at all. I was looking at playing M&M or WFRP just to get away from it.

Looking forward to my first 4E game. Good and Evil will have little meaning. PCs will do what they have to to survive, morality might be a convenience they can't afford. And the guys they think are 'evil'...well they might find themselves teaming up with them to fight the real bad guys, who, of course, don't see themselves as evil.

 

[Set]

In the Multiversal setting of the author from whom the Law/Chaos axis was named- Michael Moorcock- Law=Order. Where Law dominates completely, there is no change, only the stagnation of eternal, unchanging Order.

Always seemed kinda Vorlon/Shadow-y to me. The Lawful types might seem like 'good guys,' until you want to do something they don't like, and they turn out to be tyrants...

 

[FourthBear]

If I'm not mistaken, we have seen no reference to Law and Chaos in 4E so far, which probably means the distinction has been killed completely.

I should note that I have seen a reference to Law and Chaos in 4e, in reference to paladins. There was a note that paladins are often aligned with Law or Good, but paladins aligned with Chaos or Evil are also possible. There was also a blog message from a designer saying that what being aligned with Chaos no longer means what it used to mean.

Since the listing of possible alignments was "or" not "and", I suspect that alignment will represent a conscious declaration or association with a cosmic principle. Sort of the thing where you dedicate yourself to the cosmic forces of Law, kind of like in the Moorcock stories. Since we've also seen claims that alignment will be removed from the various powers lists (no more Detect Alignment or Aligned Smite), I suspect that this means that those who dislike even this level of alignment will be able to ignore it easily.

 

[med stud]

I like the alignments going. Going by RAW, I can't see how a large, Evil organization would work. If it consists of only people who are trying to wrangle the system (LE) or by sociopaths (NE or CE) it will break down. Still, you saw all those large, Evil organizations everywhere.

For player use, I trust the players to make up their own moral. If one PC behaves like a sociopath against the other PCs then they will react as most people would IRL; they would kick the PC out of the group.

I also find it a bit insulting towards players when people say that the only thing between being an asshat and a functional player is an alignment system. Players aren't more stupid than DMs for the most part...

EDIT: I agree with Julia on Law vs Chaos. Just because Moorcock wrote it doesn't mean that you have to keep repeating it. The word "Law" has created more confusion than anything else in the alignment flame wars I have seen.

 

[Desdichado]

I should note that I have seen a reference to Law and Chaos in 4e, in reference to paladins.

Right; alignment isn't actually going away. It's just being formally minimized. Most NPCs, PCs and creatures will now be "unaligned" and effectively have no alignment.

 

[Roland55]

I'm not a huge fan of the D&D alignment system, but I feel curiously sad to see it go...

...and there is the Jurassic Gamer's opinion, stated simply and directly.

I always feel wistful and a little nostalgic when a new edition comes along.

*Sigh*. Out with the old, in with the new.

 

[JLXC]

I guess I'm the huge exception here, I LOVE the alignment system for D&D and I'm very sad they decided to go this route.

To me, it's nice to think somewhere in the multiverse your actions, for good or evil, lawful or chaotic, have an absolute nature to them. We're dealing with world full of Gods, and angels, and Demons, where Evil is real and so is Good. The planes had alignments, and while a player may have NG written on his sheet, as the DM I've always kept track of their real alignment. I like that Evil stains your sick soul, and that Detect Evil can work.

Our world of shades of gray is just not as appealing. Sorry. To know some super evil jerk looks just like everyone else and not even the "Gods" powers or magic can help you figure it out sucks. I know many people live a shades of gray lifestyle, I don't. I like the concepts of good and evil especially.

So I'm just sad to see this go, but since I'm waiting until 4e comes out, and seeing more info anyways, and I'm already biased against it, it's just another nail in the coffin to me.

I like absolute judgement, and I'm not even religious IRL, go figure.

 

[FourthBear]

Our world of shades of gray is just not as appealing. Sorry. To know some super evil jerk looks just like everyone else and not even the "Gods" powers or magic can help you figure it out sucks. I know many people live a shades of gray lifestyle, I don't. I like the concepts of good and evil especially.

I very much dislike the D&D alignment system, but that doesn't have much to do with an interest in "shades of grey" settings. I stopped using alignment back before 2e, but the vast majority of my D&D campaigns are very much about heroes stopping the forces of evil. I don't encourage mercenary styles of play or evil-curious characters (although I have no problem with conflicted characters).

I've never really had a problem in maintaining this without alignment. And in other game systems without alignment, it's never been the case that I felt an alignment system would make the game more black and white. In my experience, all that happens is that either:

1) Everyone is happy with black and white and alignment never is needed
2) Some players/DMs want shades of grey, in which case the alignment system becomes the focus of the arguments, rather than argument between characters in game.

As long as the DM creates encounters and opponents appropriately and sets the stage during character creation, it should help more than any number of alignment axes. Also, we should keep in mind that Good/Evil alignment will be possible in the game, it just won't be assigned as often, from all reports. So you'll be able to have Evil aligned fiends and Good aligned angels, but Bess the Baker doesn't need to have alignment assigned.