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

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think alignment is a good example of when, how, and why designers should be following Mike Mearls' recent trains of thought on system design modularity. Alignment should be optional. And optional to varying degrees.

You want simple alignments? Fine, pick an axis and use that. Add complexity as you desire. Add in the other axis. Use the nine alignments. Use a different system entirely. You can decide if you want to implement mechanics based on it.

You don't want to deal with DM-induced alignment headaches - you don't have to, because you can always not play with groups that use alignment. Or, if you do, you'll know ahead of time.

I too have been on the receiving end of a few too many bad DM calls based on his failed perception of the alignment rules and how that relates to my character. Mind you, this was years ago, but I still remember it well.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

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.
<snip>
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.

So if the DM in your 4e game revealed that the awesome glowing sword you plundered from the dragon's hoard only served "insert allignment here" creatures, you would think: " Oh cool! that might be something to look in to!" rather than "Heywaitaminute the game mechanics support no such thing, snort."



It seems I give DM fiat a much greater weight than most. I would never have considered the mechanics of allignment restricitng something that was cool and in good game context, regardless of version. (To be fair I never played 3.x and really owned the 2e books mostly because they were new and had awesome covers)

To clarify, then:
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.

Off topic but I should probably reflect upon these questions:
1) How close, (as a %) do I follow RAW for 4E
2) How much, (as a %) do I even KNOW RAW for 4e.

It would be helpful for self inspection to know the answers to these questions and put my own answers in context. I'll bet the figures are 75% and 65% respectively?

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I think alignment is a good example of when, how, and why designers should be following Mike Mearls' recent trains of thought on system design modularity. Alignment should be optional. And optional to varying degrees.

You want simple alignments? Fine, pick an axis and use that. Add complexity as you desire. Add in the other axis. Use the nine alignments. Use a different system entirely. You can decide if you want to implement mechanics based on it.

You don't want to deal with DM-induced alignment headaches - you don't have to, because you can always not play with groups that use alignment. Or, if you do, you'll know ahead of time.

I too have been on the receiving end of a few too many bad DM calls based on his failed perception of the alignment rules and how that relates to my character. Mind you, this was years ago, but I still remember it well.

This is exactly what I think too, it's optional, but in the end it's all up to the DM & players what they want to do. I don't care what system you play, just play it how you want to do it so that everyone can enjoy their time at the table doing their favorite hobby. There is no right or wrong way of doing this and I've played it may different ways with different tables of players and DMs, we just agree beforehand what to do.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

And yet, the guidelines in the book do emphasize that obeying laws is a lawful act. How much guidance does it give on what point merits an alignment shift?

Look, to give an example I have my own experience with - I played Living Greyhawk. In the game, you could not play an evil character. However, non-evil characters potentially had access to spells with the 'evil' descriptor. Such as Deathwatch, an otherwise relatively harmless spell which simply reveals whether creatures are alive, dead, dying, undead, or other (such as constructs).

And yet, it had the evil descriptor. And so some folks argued that casting it was an evil act, and some DMs wouldn't allow it since doing so would make the character evil and thus they would need to be confiscated, etc. Others felt that using it was relatively harmless, and that even if it was an evil act, hardly merited an alignment change. But what if you used it a lot? What if you used it often, but used it to fight evil enemies and accomplish good deeds?

We've got a similar thing here. If a DM believes "obeying the law is acting lawful" and "doing so over and over and over again will eventually turn your lawful"... they don't match your interpretation of alignment. But the rules seem to allow for that interpretation. And the rules are what encourage the DM, in the first place, to be even making that decision. And that is where the system is at fault, in the end.

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.

But then we get into the tricky element of lawful and chaotic activities balancing each other out. 90% of the time, he acts lawful. Occasionally, he is a frenzied berserker and flips out. Do those balance down to Neutral? Or should he be Lawful most of the time and occasionally flip to Chaotic?

Or what about if we flip to the other axis. 90% of the time I go around helping people. 10% of the time I go around poisoning urchins. Does that balance out to Neutral? Does the evil act override all the good and kick someone to evil

I can totally understand someone liking the concept of alignment, and feeling their group has a sound enough agreement on the matter to never cause a problem. But I don't think you can simply dismiss the fact that many, many different arguments over the subject have come up over the years, and even the strictest reading can allow for multiple, contradictory, interpretations.

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

Sure, but the system certainly influences what calls a DM will make. Telling the DM that they, rather than the player, get the final judgement on how a character should act - I'm saying that is planting the seeds of trouble.

If the rules said, "Here are some alignments that players can use to guide their characters" rather than "Here are some alignments that players must adhere to, since there are specific mechanical effects that affect them"... you wouldn't end up with DMs getting into arguments with players over alignment, or making 'bad calls' about it.

They might make bad calls in other areas of the rules. Or they might not - again, half the problem is that alignment is an intentionally nebulous area with room for many interpretations. DMs who smoothly run AoOs and Grappling might find themselves stumbling when dealing with alignment, which doesn't give them any ultimately codified answers to rely upon.

Even if you maintain that some of the examples seem in this thread are, in your opinion, just bad calls by the DM - I think there are many, many other examples out there where it truly does come down to two potentially valid interpretations. Are certain monsters natively evil? Is it ok to kill someone who 'detects as evil' on that basis alone? Is a rebel attempting to overthrow the government, yet who has their own complex code of honor, a lawful character? Is it really neutral to murder someone one day, and donate to the poor the next?

There is a reason alignment is known to be one of the most argued over elements of the game. And I think a lot of that comes down to encouraging the DM to be making these calls.

So, yes, the system can't ensure that everything will be perfect all the time. But introducing something fundamental to a character's identity, providing poor or even contradictory interpretations of it within the rules, and then tying it to mechanics such that the DM is encouraged to 'keep watch' and make sure a player follows their alignment in a way that matches his interpretations... yeah, I think that is setting things up for trouble.

And while a system can't be perfect, I would certainly prefer one that does better than that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So if the DM in your 4e game revealed that the awesome glowing sword you plundered from the dragon's hoard only served "insert allignment here" creatures, you would think: " Oh cool! that might be something to look in to!" rather than "Heywaitaminute the game mechanics support no such thing, snort."

1) the item's functioning or non functioning was but one example. Others would include alignment based damaging or protective effects, divinations, and the like.

2) I MIGHT be concerned if he said it worked only for (either/or) Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil types, since that would describe precisely zero beings in the game thus far. I'd also wonder- in character- what he was talking about: that would be like talking to Stevie Wonder about the color blue.

3) but since our 4Ed DM uses the standard 4Ed alignment system- and most of us are unaligned- it wouldn't be much of an issue. Besides- it's his campaign: if I want to play in it, I have to abide by his rulings.

MY point stands: as a player or DM, 4Ed's alignment system is flavorless and pointless to me, and is an element (among others) that puts me off running the game.

 

[delericho]

And yet, the guidelines in the book do emphasize that obeying laws is a lawful act. How much guidance does it give on what point merits an alignment shift?

See the 3.5e PHB p.103 and the DMG p.134.

"A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment."

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character."

"Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types..."

"In addition, few people are completely consistent."

"Alignment change is gradual."

"Time requirements..."

There's plenty of stuff there. There's then more in-depth discussion in the "Book of Vile Darkness" and the "Book of Exalted Deeds".

Look, to give an example I have my own experience with - I played Living Greyhawk. In the game, you could not play an evil character. However, non-evil characters potentially had access to spells with the 'evil' descriptor. Such as Deathwatch, an otherwise relatively harmless spell which simply reveals whether creatures are alive, dead, dying, undead, or other (such as constructs).

And yet, it had the evil descriptor. And so some folks argued that casting it was an evil act,

Correctly. The rules state this in black and white.

and some DMs wouldn't allow it since doing so would make the character evil and thus they would need to be confiscated, etc. Others felt that using it was relatively harmless, and that even if it was an evil act, hardly merited an alignment change. But what if you used it a lot?

See above about general trends and incomplete consistency - casting it once is an evil act, but almost certainly doesn't warrant an alignment change. Repeated use would indeed warrant such a change, just as with any other repeated action.

We've got a similar thing here. If a DM believes "obeying the law is acting lawful" and "doing so over and over and over again will eventually turn your lawful"...

Over time, a consistent pattern of lawful actions will indeed make you lawful. And a character who is lawful may well obey the law.

However, a character who is chaotic may well also obey the law - especially if those laws happen to line up well with "what I was going to do anyway". Being chaotic doesn't make you an idiot.

But then we get into the tricky element of lawful and chaotic activities balancing each other out. 90% of the time, he acts lawful. Occasionally, he is a frenzied berserker and flips out. Do those balance down to Neutral? Or should he be Lawful most of the time and occasionally flip to Chaotic?

"Indecisiveness indicates neutrality" - DMG p.134. Seems pretty clear.

Or what about if we flip to the other axis. 90% of the time I go around helping people. 10% of the time I go around poisoning urchins. Does that balance out to Neutral? Does the evil act override all the good and kick someone to evil

See above. Also, see the note about a general pattern of behaviour.

I can totally understand someone liking the concept of alignment, and feeling their group has a sound enough agreement on the matter to never cause a problem. But I don't think you can simply dismiss the fact that many, many different arguments over the subject have come up over the years, and even the strictest reading can allow for multiple, contradictory, interpretations.

Sure. And, as I noted in my first post on the thread, I think 4e would have done well to drop alignment entirely. However, in this instance I stand by my assessment that the DM probably didn't understand alignment.

(Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many, or probably even most, people didn't actually bother to read what the books actually said on the topic. But if that's the case then the system really isn't to blame.)

Sure, but the system certainly influences what calls a DM will make. Telling the DM that they, rather than the player, get the final judgement on how a character should act - I'm saying that is planting the seeds of trouble.

The books don't do that. In fact, they explicitly state otherwise (see my quote about straightjackets, above). However, where the DM is in charge is in how the PC's alignment possibly shifts in light of the actions the PC takes. The DM doesn't control the act; the DM controls the consequences. Big difference.

If the rules said, "Here are some alignments that players can use to guide their characters" rather than "Here are some alignments that players must adhere to, since there are specific mechanical effects that affect them"... you wouldn't end up with DMs getting into arguments with players over alignment, or making 'bad calls' about it.

Not true. There have been alignment arguments in 4e. They're less frequent, but largely because most people either ignore alignment completely or choose "Unaligned".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The books don't do that. In fact, they explicitly state otherwise (see my quote about straightjackets, above). However, where the DM is in charge is in how the PC's alignment possibly shifts in light of the actions the PC takes. The DM doesn't control the act; the DM controls the consequences. Big difference.

Exactly.

Some people express themselves poorly, though- the trick is figuring out whether he is or not.

For example: a DM tells you your paladin "can't do _______ because he is Lawful Good". Is he saying you cannot commit that act, or is he warning you that if you act that way, you will violate your ethos- a critical problem for a paladin.

If it's the former, the DM has a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. If it's the latter, he has the game's rules right, but is not communicating effectively.

 

[Pentius]

Is he saying you cannot commit that act, or is he warning you that if you act that way, you will violate your ethos- a critical problem for a paladin.

This is a good(if perhaps unintentional) example of what I'm talking about though. Barring ridiculous cases(like a paladin going ape**** on some kids), the DM shouldn't be telling me what my ethos is, especially not what the nuances of it are based on two words on my character sheet. If it were all philosophical debate, that would be fine, I like debates as much as the next guy(probably more). But alignment mechanics create a situation where the DM's personal philosophies have concrete in-game effects, which in turn results in situations where a player can be roleplaying his character to the hilt, in good faith, and then get told that he's doing it wrong and he has to stop.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This is a good(if perhaps unintentional) example of what I'm talking about though. Barring ridiculous cases(like a paladin going ape**** on some kids), the DM shouldn't be telling me what my ethos is, especially not what the nuances of it are based on two words on my character sheet. If it were all philosophical debate, that would be fine, I like debates as much as the next guy(probably more). But alignment mechanics create a situation where the DM's personal philosophies have concrete in-game effects, which in turn results in situations where a player can be roleplaying his character to the hilt, in good faith, and then get told that he's doing it wrong and he has to stop.

I know what you mean exactly. I had issues like this with some fellow players when using the Chaotic Good "Paladin of Freedom" variant from 3.x Unearthed Arcana - they just didn't get where the character was coming from. They took issue with how I portrayed Chaotic Good, to say nothing of the fact that they had issues with "how you can even be a Paladin at all without being Lawful Good."

Basically, it boils down to this: if you use Alignment-based crunch, better be sure you agree philosophically with the people you game with, or you're asking for arguments down the road. Either that, or be prepared to deal with whatever rulings your DM makes. I know that this is generally good advice for any player, but alignment issues inspire the fiercest debates, IME.

With alignment mechanics in play, moral relativists and moral absolutists don't mix well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is a good(if perhaps unintentional) example of what I'm talking about though. Barring ridiculous cases(like a paladin going ape**** on some kids), the DM shouldn't be telling me what my ethos is, especially not what the nuances of it are based on two words on my character sheet. If it were all philosophical debate, that would be fine, I like debates as much as the next guy(probably more). But alignment mechanics create a situation where the DM's personal philosophies have concrete in-game effects, which in turn results in situations where a player can be roleplaying his character to the hilt, in good faith, and then get told that he's doing it wrong and he has to stop.

First of all, a paladin's alignment strictures are going to be tighter than for any other class in the game- it's part of the challenge to playing the class, and it models the source material very well. If a DM is telling/warning you that an act you're contemplating for your paladin could violate his ethos, he's doing his job.

But that is also why I say as I have ALWAYS said: if you're playing a paladin, talk to the DM about how he views the class & their code. Some DMs only know & understand one kind of paladin, some know and understand a panoply of them. And beyond that, they may function in a particular way in a given campaign

Bottom line: a vengeful, nearly possessed warrior of the gods may be the only paladin you can play in a given campaign, whereas another game may have room for chivalrous peacemakers...only. And another campaign may have room for the entire range between.

But secondly, and regardless, the DM who tells you your PC cannot take a certain action due to alignment is suffering a misapprehension of the rules. Your PC is free to act as you direct it, the DM decides tha consequences of the action.

Third, even absent an alignment system, a game master's personal philosophies may result in negative in-game effects for your PCs if you don't see eye-to-eye. In an alignment-less Sci-Fi RPG campaign I was in, another player's PC's actions were deemed "conduct unbecoming" and he lost his rank and was drummed out of the service.

Personally, I agreed that the PC's actions deserved a little punishment, but not as much as he got. But I could also see why he did get what he got...once the GM explained the decision. The PC's player didn't, and left the group.