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

[MrMyth]

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.

I see these sort of suggestions a lot and they always seem to miss the point. Most of these arguments happen because they group thought they had a shared understanding of the alignment system (or any other area of the rules). Finding out in the middle of a session partway into the game is where the conflict comes in.

And again - it comes down so much to personal interpretation. You blame the fault in that scenario on the DM "not understanding alignment" - because he interprets it differently than you, not because he is actually contradicting the rules. Because the rules just don't offer enough guidance or detail to ensure common ground between both of you.

You do have a point that, once the game starts, when it comes down to conflicting interpretations, the DM usually takes precedence. The problem is that most rules calls don't involve telling you how to play your character.

Say I'm playing Byron the Berserker - I'm a smart, professional, friendly warrior with a good head for tactics - when I don't fly into a killing rage and render everything on the battlefield into bloody bits of flesh and bone.

Seems like a classic Barbarian - but the second the DM says, "No, in order to stay a barbarian, you must at all times be breaking the law and causing mayhem"... that kills the core of the character. In a way that other rules calls don't.

But the alignment system puts that power into the hands of the DM. And, in my opinion, that is a fundamentally bad thing.

Now, many would argue that it is helpful, since it lets the DM keep some characters in check. It gives them a way to respond when the so-called 'good cleric' murders some vagrants in the street, or the paladin starts torturing and maiming folks he believes are evil.

But problem players will often find ways around them, or find ways to justify their actions. The proper way to respond to that is with in game consequences. Let the character choose how they want to play, and deal with it.

One can argue that is what the DM is doing with the Barbarian who loses his powers by being too lawful. But that is only a consequence because that is a system with alignment mechanically attached to the class. Remove that, and the DM would never have cause to say such a thing - it is basically a nonsensical consequence with that element removed.

It is easy to blame the DM for making a bad call. But I think it important to recognize that the system gave him the tools to make that bad call, and steered him in that direction. Calling it blameless seems to be missing the underlying problem itself.

 

[delericho]

And again - it comes down so much to personal interpretation. You blame the fault in that scenario on the DM "not understanding alignment" - because he interprets it differently than you, not because he is actually contradicting the rules.

If the description that is given was accurate, he made two of the basic errors in interpretation - conflating 'lawful' with "obeys the local laws", and enforcing an alignment shift for a single minor transgression. So, yeah, in my opinion he didn't appear to understand alignment.

Say I'm playing Byron the Berserker - I'm a smart, professional, friendly warrior with a good head for tactics - when I don't fly into a killing rage and render everything on the battlefield into bloody bits of flesh and bone.

Seems like a classic Barbarian - but the second the DM says, "No, in order to stay a barbarian, you must at all times be breaking the law and causing mayhem"...

Then your DM is wrong. Such a character would be of a Neutral alignment, neither Lawful nor Chaotic. And Neutral is a perfectly valid alignment for a 3e barbarian.

It is easy to blame the DM for making a bad call. But I think it important to recognize that the system gave him the tools to make that bad call, and steered him in that direction. Calling it blameless seems to be missing the underlying problem itself.

There is no system that doesn't allow a DM to make bad calls. There can be no such system.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

*snip* a bunch of good points *snip*

I think your XP button is broken, MrMyth. Probably from me pressing it every time I see you post! Suffice to say, I agree.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Interesting conversation going on here on what people think breaks the game systems with alignment mechanics. I've always just thought of alignments as a simple and easy to use tool to help keep the players in character and thinking about what their character would do. I never penalized a character for not acting strictly within "alignment specs", unless it was something he did flagrantly such as a LG Paladin (lets say of Justice) walking up and slitting the throat of a evil NPC after it was already restrained instead of taking him in for judgement. In that case as a DM, I'd rule that his god has become angry with him and he would lose some paladin powers, perhaps not get his lay on hands until he has a penance of some sort or quest to appease the god.

In the case of the berserker and a DM ruling he had to always being a mayhem making brute, that is wrong to me. I'd have ruled that only while in a fight does he go into a rage and break necks, chairs, and puppies.

So it should only be a guideline for the player to get in character and a DM to use remind a player that they may want to think about what their character would do with that particular alignment in that particular situation before doing something that would seem to be out of character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

To clarify, then:

1) 4Ed's alignment change from mechanic to fluff excised a lot of things I liked about D&D's alignment system- things like magic items that only worked for you or against you if your alignment was ____, for instance. This was virtually unique among FRPGs: it helped distinguish D&D from other FRPGs, give it a unique identity.

2) That, coupled with other changes, made 4Ed just another FRPG to me, as opposed to the next iteration of D&D. Overall, those changes made 4Ed into a game that, while I enjoy playing, I have zero inclination to master well enough to run from the other side of the screen. My DMG & MM are virtually pristine.

Happy side effect, though. Because I have no inclinations towards 4Ed DM-erry, in some ways, playing 4Ed is a bit more like my early days in the hobby learning AD&D: I have almost ZERO meta knowledge of the game, so new creatures feel new; mysterious spells feel mysterious.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Interesting conversation going on here on what people think breaks the game systems with alignment mechanics. I've always just thought of alignments as a simple and easy to use tool to help keep the players in character and thinking about what their character would do.

I once read a statistic that there are 750,000 D&D players. (Take that with a grain of salt.) So I like to say there's 750,000 different alignment interpretations.

It doesn't help the TSR/WotC has done this poorly, which I suspect is the reason why few people understand law or chaos, or why CN is so despised. I find it a little odd that a wiki explains these things better than WotC.

So what's simple and easy for one person to figure out isn't necessarily easy for another. There will be disagreements even for those who think they have figured it out, and if one is a DM there can be problems. Some people will be reasonable, and some will not.

I never penalized a character for not acting strictly within "alignment specs"

In some editions of the game, you were supposed to do that, with XP penalties. In 3e there was even the atonement spell for that. Of course, there were few if any guidelines on when you should do an alignment change, and every DM who did that had different interpretations as to what would trigger that, how much warning the PC should get, etc.

In the case of the berserker and a DM ruling he had to always being a mayhem making brute, that is wrong to me.

But "right" for that DM. (I think said DM was being unreasonable, but there's no text in the PH or DMG saying he's wrong. How could there be? So he's not breaking any sort of rule there.)

So it should only be a guideline for the player to get in character and a DM to use remind a player that they may want to think about what their character would do with that particular alignment in that particular situation before doing something that would seem to be out of character.

To me, the first part there ("a guideline for the player to get in character") is "wrong" and the second can be dealt with by using house/table rules rather than mechanics.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

[MENTION=1165](Psi)SeveredHead[/MENTION] you are welcome to disagree with me. As you have mentioned above, there are 750,000 opinions on the matter and however you game is the way you like to do it and I game the way I like to do it (neither is wrong, just personal preferences). I just say to have fun while doing it, if everyone agrees that you use alignments as guidelines to get into character or if they rather the DM house-rule the mechanics, that's up to each table as long as they are having fun doing what they enjoy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the description that is given was accurate, he made two of the basic errors in interpretation - conflating 'lawful' with "obeys the local laws", and enforcing an alignment shift for a single minor transgression. So, yeah, in my opinion he didn't appear to understand alignment.

Agreed- and I'll say that previous editions DID make this clearer. There is talk in one of the earlier books about "tendencies", as in "LG with Neutral tendencies" or "CG with Lawful tendencies" to illustrate nuances within the system.

But yeah- that DM would be way off. At least one system noted that a CG character would have a personal code of conduct- something this hypothetical DM would call Lawful- that they value above the rules of society. They are generally law abiding except where it conflicts with their personal code, making them individualists.

In another section, it was noted that a paladin might exhibit lawbreaking behavior if, for instance, they were fighting slavery- and I do mean FIGHTING- but that would not be chaotic but good. More likely, though, he would opt not to own slaves, or would buy them and free them.

There is no system that doesn't allow a DM to make bad calls. There can be no such system.

Exactly.

 

[MrMyth]

1) 4Ed's alignment change from mechanic to fluff excised a lot of things I liked about D&D's alignment system- things like magic items that only worked for you or against you if your alignment was ____, for instance. This was virtually unique among FRPGs: it helped distinguish D&D from other FRPGs, give it a unique identity.

I can certainly understand missing these elements. In many ways, I feel that the 4E approach to artifacts has taken their place for me, which takes a similar approach but makes it more focused.

So you might have a Regalia of Good that does not say, "You must be Good alignment to use this". Instead, when you perform a good deed, your Concordance with the artifact goes up, and you gain more access to its power. But when you perform an evil act, your Concordance goes down, and eventually you are punished by it.

In addition to it feeling more nuanced, I also like that it means such effects are rarely trivial. And it removes many of the issues I have with alignment being effectively a binary state when interacting with spells and effects and items.

It is not the same thing, certainly, and has both strengths and weaknesses compared to the old approach - but I think is a clear example that this element hasn't vanished from D&D entirely.

 

[keterys]

DM and play - people may or may not pick alignment, but as far as I'm concerned alignment is not a meaningful part of the system, nor should it be. I'd have been fine if they tossed alignment entirely, or reduced it to Good/Evil/Unaligned if they really wanted.

What really matters is how people roleplay. Someone claiming they can or can't do something because it says Good or Lawful, or _doesn't_, meh. Pick a personality and run with it.