D&D 4E My Special Rules for Nine Alignments in 4E

[KahnyaGnorc]

People often see alignments, especially the Law/Chaos axis, in their extremes. For example, I'm sure a lot of folks would think that those of a Lawful alignment would never start or join a violent revolution. However, reading the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton (and the Hamiltonians), he was definitely Lawful. Now, the Loyalists would be mostly Lawful, as well, but you have gradients within specific alignments. The Jeffersonians, including James Madison, would be Chaotic (more individual liberty and such), but so would the Patrick Henrys of the time (who advocated a second revolution against the Constitution) . . . just different levels of Chaotic. Then, you have Ben Franklin, who advocated more freedoms, but also did everything he could to do it within the system before advocated revolution. He would be Neutral in my book (Neutral Good, overall).

I decided to use the American Revolution era for my real-life reference to avoid any sort of current politics...

 

[serrin]

At first, i was opposed to degrading the alignments in 4e. My opinion was that they were dumbing down the game to interest new players. (I still think there is much truth to that)
However, after some thought and play time I notice a few things from both sides of the table.

My DM perspective.
I have a group of friends that I DM for and we get together only a few times a year. We've been playing for years, starting with 2nd edition and 3e. No plans to move to 4e with that group. Due to the infrequency of play, everytime we get together, someone spends time throughout the game doing this. "Hmmm, my player is NG.. should i do this? can I do this? What will happen if I do this?" etc, even though i've never been very strict on Alignment outside of Paladins (more on that later.)
It gets over roleplayed and drags down game speed.

Now I'm also DM'ing 4e for some new players (not familiar with any older editions of the game). the more I DM this group, the more i realize that the alignments are somewhat a waste of time beyond just a general attitude. Also there isn't any good way to enforce 'out of character' alignment shifts in my opinion, without dealing with arguments and other issues that aren't worth time at the game table.

From a DM perspective. I think its not such a bad thing afterall.

Player Perspective:
Not even sure it bothers me, I play my characters the same way really, so other than the initial "WTF" I can't say it's an issue.


My Exception..
The Paladin. Seriously, this is a character that begs to be played a certain way. You wouldn't choose it otherwise. I liked the fact that if you wanted to get the benefits a paladin bestowed (post 4E) you had to put up with the restrictions. It's part of the fun too. I still maintain that paladins should be lawful good, or at least lawful evil, if you so choose to be a dark knight, dark paladin.

Can you believe i signed up just to post to this thread
Cheers.

 

[Johnnii]

The alignments have currently no (or very minimal rules to them).

If you want the nine-alignment, why not just run it with the nine alignments, what's stopping you? It would be no more houseruling than running your own homebrew world.

Personally, I go the other way completely and ditch alignment compeletely in my games. I find building a campaign and designing NPCs in that campaign where you have to adhere to the alignment is too rigid for my taste.

Edit: I've also never liked Paladin falling from grace to Dark Knights/Blackguard from day one I looked at D&D. It feels like a soulless ripoff of a Jedi turning to the Dark side (where a Jedi falling has a lot more flavor to it).

 

[fumetti]

In other words, a creative team who had grown bored with something got hold of it and changed it, not quite getting that maybe they're the only ones really bored with it because they're immersed in it everyday.

Absolutely. The best solution would have been to change the (bored) creative staff -- who are essentially just temporary caretakers of the franchise.

 

[fumetti]

My question was a bit trolly but I really would like people to think about why they like alignments. I suspect that when it comes down to it many are in favor of them because it is what they're used to.

I didn't start my role-playing with D&D. I played Marvel Superheroes, Middle Earth RPG, Rolemaster, then Star Wars d6. To the best of my memory those games don't have alignments and I never felt the lack.

Alignments often seem to be an impediment to giving a character an interesting personality, in my observation and experiences. They also seem to be the crux of several pervasive problems in previous editions of D&D.

Star Wars d6 began with the requirement that all PCs were members of the rebellion. So I didn't play it long. I wanted to be 'unaligned.' (It later changed. Didn't hurt the game that I know of.)

 

[fumetti]

Alignments are necessary for NPCs. It's a bad story when characters just act willy-nilly.

They are useful for PC creation to establish a basic "nature" or worldview.

I believe that each campaign should have a basic "alignment." Are the
PCs heroes? Are they conquerors? Gives a purpose to it all.

 

[lin_fusan]

I've noticed that the 4e alignment system is very much like a line, with Lawful Good on top and Chaotic Evil on bottom. It mirrors the 4e default cosmology, with the Astral containing a lot of the Good deities and realms and the Elemental Chaos containing all the evil Primordials with the Abyss being the worst Chaotic Evil space in the Elemental Chaos.

I wonder if keeping the alignments but in its modified form was mostly for design symmetry.

However, since 4e alignments don't mechanically affect anything, nor is a roleplaying restriction, I wish that they had completely removed it altogether from 4e.

This coming from a guy who really likes the old alignment system and the Great Wheel cosmology.