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

[babinro]

As a DM, I've always made it clear that alignment doesn't exist my world. Rather, players will be judged entirely by their actions.

Actions that are 'good' or 'evil' are really just a matter of perspective. 'lawful' and 'chaotic' can be redefined by any given city within the world you design.

 

[Fox Lee]

I like alignments - I find them to be a useful shorthand to describe a character's actions over time. I felt that the 4e alignment system maligned one of my favourite NPC alignments, however - I always enjoyed lawful neutral characters, and I don't think any of the 4e alignments represents it in a satisfying fashion.

I have provisionally added "Lawful" to the 4e group, so technically I'm using a 6-point system now. Not that it matters anyway - I bet most of my players still have 3e-style alignments written on their sheets

EDIT: Kind of funny seeing all the folks on this thread talking about how they don't like alignments because they prefer for things to be dictated by the character's actions. I could have sworn 3e spent a good deal of time beating it into our collective heads that alignment is an expression of the characters' actions. You know it's a description, not a mould, right?

 

[Droogie128]

I like alignments - I find them to be a useful shorthand to describe a character's actions over time. I felt that the 4e alignment system maligned one of my favourite NPC alignments, however - I always enjoyed lawful neutral characters, and I don't think any of the 4e alignments represents it in a satisfying fashion.

I have provisionally added "Lawful" to the 4e group, so technically I'm using a 6-point system now. Not that it matters anyway - I bet most of my players still have 3e-style alignments written on their sheets

This is what I don't get. Why does your sheet have to say "Lawful Neutral"? Instreallyead of you just playing a character that you would interpret as such.

I always hated alignment, and felt it hurt roleplay rather than help it. Especially since it was never really spelled out what each alignment meant, and was mostly left open to interpretation. This caused more problems in campaigns I was in than anything (especially Paladins).

I just say play your character as you see it without trying to live up to a vague label on your character sheet. This always leads alignment to feel more like robotic programming rather than an intelligent being with free will.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Especially since it was never really spelled out what each alignment meant, and was mostly left open to interpretation.

I know 3Ed and 3.5Ed explicitly spelled out alignment in their PHBs, and as I recall, so did the 1Ed & 2Ed PHBs as well.

 

[Droogie128]

I know 3Ed and 3.5Ed explicitly spelled out alignment in their PHBs, and as I recall, so did the 1Ed & 2Ed PHBs as well.

No, they really didn't. Alignment would need to be faaaaar more detailed than they are. Especially in the case of Paladins, since the mechanical implications of not following it explicitly will make the character unplayable.

What I mean, is something like how Palladium did alignment. It was a set of ethics that was specifically spelled out.

All in all, I think alignment is a useless mechanic, as that is what roleplaying is for.

The only game that I think has a decent morality system is World of Darkness with their virtues and vices. You get little perks for playing into them (boosts in willpower), but nothing that will make or break your character. Vampires have the humanity trait which takes it a bit further, and that can have large mechanical impacts, but it would take blatantly trying to diminish it over a long period of time.

I just say play your character, and let the story the character tells define who he is. Alignment (especially with mechanics tied to it), works against this.

 

[Pentius]

I know 3Ed and 3.5Ed explicitly spelled out alignment in their PHBs, and as I recall, so did the 1Ed & 2Ed PHBs as well.

The way it always seemed to me is that alignment was described in exactly the wrong amount. It was spelled out enough that a reader could get a clear picture of what each alignment was, but not so clearly that everyone got the same picture. Thus, alignment arguments.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The way it always seemed to me is that alignment was described in exactly the wrong amount. It was spelled out enough that a reader could get a clear picture of what each alignment was, but not so clearly that everyone got the same picture. Thus, alignment arguments.

For them to delineate all possible behaviors under one point of their alignment system would have been impossible; enough to eliminate arguments would still be dauntingly huge.

The thumbnails were, IMHO, sufficient to the task of playing the game, and personally, never witnessed an argument based purely on alignment.

(And no, it's not like I play in homogenous groups- I won't describe how diverse unless directly asked, though.)

Besides, the possibility of disagreements over what is LG (for example) were very realistic to me. Just because people share an ethos does not mean they agree. Years ago in Dragon, one clever game designer pointed out that a Knight in the Crusades and the Islamic warrior he faced in battle could BOTH be paladins.

 

[thewok]

I use the standard 4E alignment system. It's really only an issue for Divine characters, though. Divine characters that go against their gods' wishes repeatedly can have their powers revoked. Alignment is a part of that, but not all. I don't follow the default 4E philosophy that once powers are invested in a character, the deity cannot divest them of those powers.

I do, however, follow the 4E philosophy of what those alignments mean. For the most part, people are Unaligned. The people who devote themselves one way or another will find themselves in an actual alignment. Some deities require that alignment of their representatives on the material plane.

 

[Droogie128]

For them to delineate all possible behaviors under one point of their alignment system would have been impossible; enough to eliminate arguments would still be dauntingly huge.

The thumbnails were, IMHO, sufficient to the task of playing the game, and personally, never witnessed an argument based purely on alignment.

(And no, it's not like I play in homogenous groups- I won't describe how diverse unless directly asked, though.)

Besides, the possibility of disagreements over what is LG (for example) were very realistic to me. Just because people share an ethos does not mean they agree. Years ago in Dragon, one clever game designer pointed out that a Knight in the Crusades and the Islamic warrior he faced in battle could BOTH be paladins.

When consequences for not following a rule can be disasterous, that rule needs to be spelled out in detail. Otherwise, it's just bad design.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Pentius]

For them to delineate all possible behaviors under one point of their alignment system would have been impossible; enough to eliminate arguments would still be dauntingly huge.

Yeah, and with that knowledge, putting in alignment mechanics seems silly.

The thumbnails were, IMHO, sufficient to the task of playing the game, and personally, never witnessed an argument based purely on alignment.

Good for you. I can recall at least ten hours worth of such arguments, though. And that's just what I've personally participated in.

Besides, the possibility of disagreements over what is LG (for example) were very realistic to me. Just because people share an ethos does not mean they agree. Years ago in Dragon, one clever game designer pointed out that a Knight in the Crusades and the Islamic warrior he faced in battle could BOTH be paladins.

The Catholic Knight and the Islamic Warrior's argument could be very cool, and I've heard that one before. But alignment arguments between characters isn't what I'm talking about when I talk about alignment arguments. I don't even mean between players, those are easily enough ended with a "Dude, it's my character." I'm speaking of arguments between the DM and the player(s). That's when it starts to get drawn out, because mechanics are on the line. It's when the DM tells you your Barbarian can't be a Barbarian anymore, because he didn't break any laws while you were in town, which is clearly Lawful conduct. It's when your Detect Evil doesn't register an evil aura on the lying, backstabbing, manipulative, cleric of orcus, "I'm gonna end this world in an armageddon of undeath" NPC, because the DM wrote "Chaotic Neutral" in his notes. It's when the assassin cuts the ears off a captive prisoner and tries to tell you he was just following his chaotic neutral alignment by just going on a whim.

(All of those happened.)