D&D 4E Poll for 4e DMs: Alignment System

[Dice4Hire]

I both run and play 4E and I am very glad 4E's alignement system has been simplified nad powers and such do not key of alignment (or at least do not much at all)

That said, I do not use the system, or any one. For my characters, I have a general idea where my character stands on the scale though.

 

[KidSnide]

Of all those alignment systems, previous editions of D&D's version, in which alignment is a true game mechanic with concrete campaign world implications, is my favorite. For me to be satisfied with adding a real alignment system back in would be too much work. (My view: it would have been far easier to keep it as it was and let those who disliked it simply ignore it.)

As a counter-point, the 3.x alignment system used to drive me nuts. There were all these spells that had different effects based on the moral character of the target. If was very difficult to take a more graduated view of alignment without altering or eliminating these spells, which had a significant effect on the balance of certain character types.

I don't have any particular love for 4e's slightly peculiar 5-alignment system, but I'll give a big positive vote for separating rules mechanics from alignment.

-KS

 

[Umbran]

Moved to the 4e forum.

 

[Infiniti2000]

4E's alignment system is a huge step in the right direction. 3.X was abysmal and mostly unplayable. It had so many stupid quirks that I say good riddance. 4E's is really good for two reasons: simplified and allows for an ambiguous alignment, and the mechanics don't require it.

In before the lock!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I DM 4E and do not use the alignment system, nor have ever used an alignment system. However, I do let players choose one if it would help them get into their character's mindset.

Alignments to me are one of several different types of signposts that less experienced roleplayers can used to give an indication of how play their character. Just like Backgrounds, Virtue/Hubris lists, personality tests, and the like. If internalizing the idea of what 'Lawful Neutral' means can help the player figure out how they'd like to play his/her character, then the alignment has done its job. However, I do not bother worrying about alignments on monsters, and most spells that are directly connected to alignment get pretty much ignored in my games anyway.

 

[Balesir]

I DM 4E and do not use the alignment system, nor have ever used an alignment system. However, I do let players choose one if it would help them get into their character's mindset.

Huh - I thought that was the 4E alignment system - and a fine one it is, too!

I was a bit baffled whether to choose option 1 or 4, since they seem the same, to me.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't use alignment mechanics. I don't like them. This would almost free my table of alignment arguments, but I do want players not to be evil

THIS.

That's why I voted "I DM 4e and I don't have alignments as a game mechanic"

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Not sure which option to choose between "I DM 4e and I use 4e's 5-alignment system or something close" and "I DM 4e and I don't have alignments as a game mechanic", as the 5-alignment system doesn't really have much in the way of game mechanics.

Yeah, where's the option for "It doesn't matter, so who cares?"?

Alignment is meaningless in 4e, so my players can write whatever they want in that entry. Including nothing at all. Or 'passionate gondlefop.'

When I make a character to play, I generally write down "unaligned" on the Alignment line, just in case the DM decides to care. Then I go about playing the character pretty much the same way I'd play them if there wasn't a space for alignment on the sheet at all.

I don't even write 'neutral'...er, I mean 'unaligned.' I've never had a DM ask what my alignment is.

____________________________________________

I'm continually amazed at how other 4e gamers assume that alignment means anything. Just this past weekend, I discovered that two of my players thought that 4e gods can take away divine powers from characters who offend them. One of them isn't a rules guy, and isn't even a D&D guy, so I wasn't surprised that he assumed that TSR alignment rules still hold. But the other one is definitely a rules guy who's been playing 4e since publication, but this Sunday was the first time he had actually read the alignment text of a divine class.

Fraking incredible, right?

 

[Gronin]

I use the alignment system from 4E but only as a guideline. I have never been a fan of alignment and have always prefered (both as a player and a DM) to let the actions of the character determine the reaction of the world around them rather than the fact that the player is of a particular alignment. I have always hated things like Know Alignment spells and Detect Evil/Good as player tools to determine whether or not they trusted or for that matter killed someone/thing.

I should probably add that I neither play in nor DM evil campaigns. Players should be heroes (reluctant or otherwise).

 

[MrMyth]

2) bolt-on is unacceptable. I play all kinds of RPGs, with & without alignment, including my all-time fave, HERO. Of all those alignment systems, previous editions of D&D's version, in which alignment is a true game mechanic with concrete campaign world implications, is my favorite. For me to be satisfied with adding a real alignment system back in would be too much work. (My view: it would have been far easier to keep it as it was and let those who disliked it simply ignore it.)

It is also worth noting (as I think Dannyalcatraz is getting at here) that 4E's adjustment of alignment involved two things:
1) Removing direct connections between alignment and the game mechanics.
2) Switching from the 9 point system to the 5 point system.

The latter is trivial to 'bolt-on' - it takes literally a single sentence from the DM to just say, "Yeah, use the classic alignments instead of the new ones."

The former, on the other hand, does require a bit more work to reintegrate alignment mechanically. And it sounds like that is more of the area of concern in this case, rather than the change in the alignments themselves.

In my case... I like the removal of mechanics (for the most part). I understand the logic behind the new 5 point system, but don't find it particularly compelling, so I tend to use the old alignments. Mostly - I do like the addition of 'unaligned' as opposed to 'true neutral'. I've also found alignment most useful as a tool for the player rather than DM, so I don't feel too strongly either way.