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

[delericho]

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.

In thousands of years of recorded history and philosophy, the entirety of humanity have failed to come up with anything close to a common understanding of good and evil. You want them to provide one for the game?

The only thing that it is possible for them to do is describe the alignments in broad strokes. That's what they did.

 

[delericho]

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.)

Sounds to me like your group should have got together and hammered out a common understanding of alignment before you got to that point, especially when dealing with characters with alignment issue. It also sounds to me like your DM didn't really understand alignment all that well, or was just being awkward.

But despite that, once we're in the game, it is ultimately up to the DM to make calls of that sort. So if he judged that your Barbarian had become Lawful, then that was really his call, and not something for the players to argue about for hours.

 

[Pentius]

Sounds to me like your group should have got together and hammered out a common understanding of alignment before you got to that point, especially when dealing with characters with alignment issue. It also sounds to me like your DM didn't really understand alignment all that well, or was just being awkward.

All of the above.

But despite that, once we're in the game, it is ultimately up to the DM to make calls of that sort. So if he judged that your Barbarian had become Lawful, then that was really his call, and not something for the players to argue about for hours.

See, I have a problem with that. If alignment hadn't had any mechanics on it, and had just been a footnote on my sheet, sure, it would have been fine. But this meant that I was going to have to lose my rages, and have to start taking levels in a new class, just because we disagreed on whether chaotic meant not considering the laws when I acted, or actively trying to break them just because. This wasn't a one-session, "oh well" sort of deal. It was a character-changing(ruining, in my view) ruling. So heck yeah, I argued it.

In thousands of years of recorded history and philosophy, the entirety of humanity have failed to come up with anything close to a common understanding of good and evil. You want them to provide one for the game?

The only thing that it is possible for them to do is describe the alignments in broad strokes. That's what they did.

Or, you know, not write into the game mechanics for things that have no universal understanding.

 

[The Human Target]

I use the basic 5 slot alignment system, because its there.

Since its not mechanically important at all (okay, 99.9% of the time), I think the only thing thats been said about it has been "No evil" or "Only good" in regards to different campaigns.

If I was going to bother changing it, it would be to the 3 slot Good-Neutral-Evil version.

Anything else is more of a hassle than its worth in my experience.

Player- "My monk is Lawful Neutral, but the law he follows is of a Chaotic Evil demon cult. Thats fine right?"

DM- <weeps>

 

[Fox Lee]

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.

Well, why would you call yourself a "christian" or a "democrat" or a "skeptic" rather than just acting in that fashion? Labels are fundamentally useful to humans. In D&D as in life, as long as you remember that the content defines the label - and not the other way about - labels have quite a useful function.

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).

Dannyalcatraz covered this pretty well, but I'd also like to point out that the paladin code is its own ill-contrived beastie, at least from 3e onward. An argument over the paladin code (especially if it involves orc rape) is a separate issue from an argument over alignments.

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.

This is my point; anybody trying to "live up to" the label is doing it wrong, and I don't believe a rule is responsible for people who follow it incorrectly. The label doesn't tell you how to act, it describes how you are acting. This is made abundantly clear in 3e/3.5e. If your sheet says lawful good and you act lawful evil, your sheet changes. There's nothing like "programming" involved.

 

[was]

I stick w/the book

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think part of the conflict in alignments stems from the fact that the player and the DM may have very different views about the character's actions, and that changing the alignment would be like changing the character's class or race -- a defining characteristic of the character. So when the DM does this, it feels invasive and problematic.

Which is why my schema doesn't really care what the DM thinks. It relies on a few broad questions to the player, and if your answer to these questions is complicated, it defaults to "just be unaligned."

Elder editions had some baggage about penalizing characters for changing alignments, which is problematic. Much better to let the player decide what they are, let the DM help define it, and let everyone be happy when the Book of Vile Darkness actually responds to you (or doesn't).

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I play, but do not run, 4Ed: it's alignment system is one reason I don't run it, so I voted the last slot in the poll.

This is the only [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] post ever that really makes no sense to me. Talk about baby with the bath water.

Anyway, for me, alignment has never done anything mechanically to the game. I am not even sure what allignment my players have listed on their character sheets. We do sometimes have to reak in to conversation about what the character would really do, but that alignment slot has nothing to do with that conversation.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Well, why would you call yourself a "christian" or a "democrat" or a "skeptic" rather than just acting in that fashion? Labels are fundamentally useful to humans. In D&D as in life, as long as you remember that the content defines the label - and not the other way about - labels have quite a useful function.
.

can be useful. Certainly not mandatory to understand someone though. Furthermore, they can be misleading.

 

[Will Doyle]

As a DM, I appreciate having alignment listed for monsters as it gives me a very basic idea of how to play them. But I'll never stick to it religiously: I prefer villains to be capable of good acts too.

As for player alignments, I don't really understand them from a DM's perspective. Is it meant as a bat to stop them playing their own character out-of-character?

I have a basic table rule that players shouldn't commit gruesome, evil acts or steal from/murder other player characters. I want D&D to be heroic, so if somebody crosses the line, they're breaking a table rule, not playing out of character.

Beyond that, they can do what they please, and rigidly sticking to an alignment seems like a narrative straightjacket.