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

[Pentius]

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.

First Point: What you call challenge, I call tedium. And the advice about asking your DM before playing a paladin is solid advice for playing in a system that has alignment mechanics, but does nothing to convince me that they are mechanics worth having.

Second Point: I recognize the distinction, but find it not terribly pertinent.

Third Point: It's true, any car can crash. Still, if I'm gonna drive, I'd rather not drive a Pinto.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First Point: What you call challenge, I call tedium. And the advice about asking your DM before playing a paladin is solid advice for playing in a system that has alignment mechanics, but does nothing to convince me that they are mechanics worth having.

Fair enough, but IME, I haven't seen anything resembling a classic literary paladin in any RPG without alignment mechanics.

Second Point: I recognize the distinction, but find it not terribly pertinent.

How is it not pertinent to distinguish between playing a game by the rules and not playing the game by the rules/with deep misunderstanding of the rules?

It's like saying you don't like playing poker because the guys you play with insist that 2 pairs beats a full house.

Third Point: It's true, any car can crash. Still, if I'm gonna drive, I'd rather not drive a Pinto.

Amusing rhetoric, but I don't see alignment as any more *ahem* inflammatory to game play as any other element of pre-4Ed D&D.

Nor does it change my earlier point that it's far easier to ignore alignment in a system that uses it than it is to add an intricate alignment system to a system that doesn't. D&D lost something many felt worth keeping that those who didn't like it could have continued to ignore as they had in the past.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I see this discussion of alignment in game is going every bit as well as the ones I remember participating in back in the day. Neither side sees eye to eye, and that is unlikely to change. Differing play styles and preferences. It happens.

D&D lost something 'many' felt worth keeping. Apparently 'many' felt just as strongly that it had to go. I will agree that it's easier to ignore alignment than backport it, but at 4e's launch, the approach was "everything is core" and therefore fair game, meaning that a lot of DMs and players would *have to* use it, like it or not. Any organized play, LFR, etc.

I understand the decision to ditch it.

You and many others don't like that, and I understand that too. It's also why Next Edition, it will likely be included as one of the 'options' that [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has been talking about lately.

That said, I fail to see how the lack of alignment hard-coded into the game stops you from playing a paladin based on literary tropes. Just not seeing it. You still get to write 'paladin' on your sheet, you still get to write 'lawful good' on your sheet. You can still make up a code to follow based on said tropes. If you break said code, you can still impose your own restrictions, and with your DM's help - they can be real. Zowie!

 

[Pentius]

Fair enough, but IME, I haven't seen anything resembling a classic literary paladin in any RPG without alignment mechanics.

Me either, which is why I refused to play paladins pre-4e. I've played three of them so far in 4e, though, since the alignment mechanics in 4e might as well just be guidelines.

How is it not pertinent to distinguish between playing a game by the rules and not playing the game by the rules/with deep misunderstanding of the rules?

It's like saying you don't like playing poker because the guys you play with insist that 2 pairs beats a full house.

Whether the DM is telling me that my character physically cannot perform an off-alignment action, or that doing so will result in negative mechanical repercussions, he's telling me that my interpretation of my character is wrong, and that I need to start roleplaying his way. If I were just trying to be disruptive, I'd deserve what I got, but not for playing in good faith.

Amusing rhetoric, but I don't see alignment as any more *ahem* inflammatory to game play as any other element of pre-4Ed D&D.

Nor does it change my earlier point that it's far easier to ignore alignment in a system that uses it than it is to add an intricate alignment system to a system that doesn't. D&D lost something many felt worth keeping that those who didn't like it could have continued to ignore as they had in the past.

Hehe, imflammatory.

But it's only easy to ignore it if your group agrees to. Get two guys arguing to ignore alignment and two(or 1 DM) arguing to keep it, and it's probably not going anywhere. And adding an intricate system might be hard, but D&D has never really had an intricate system. Heck, if I wanted an old edition's alignment mechanics back, importing them wholesale wouldn't be much trouble. The Detect spells become utility powers, the Protection-type ones become rituals of the level you used to have to be to learn that spell. To flip it around, D&D dropped something many felt needed a good dropping, and those who liked it could simply have continued to use it as they did in the past.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Tangential to that, imagine that you want mechanical repercussions like in the Old Days. Your Paladin, Sir Stick-in-the-mud, has just been a naughty boy. Your DM informs you, "since this is how you like it, and you've been naughty one too many times, there are consequences..."

Suddenly, Sir Stick's Power Source changes to Martial. His class name is now Disgraced Paladin, so all feats calling upon his Paladin class are now meaningless. He loses access to all abilities with the Divine Keyword, which is... let's see... pretty much all of them, just like before. He can make Basic Attacks, can still wear Plate and carry a big shield. He's still tough. That's about it. Sounds like a Warrior with no abilities to me.

He could still take skill powers, if the condition persists long enough, and swap his feats for unclassed ones. In short, he sucks. Just like Gary intended.

It's not over yet though. He has choices! And moral dilemmas! He could continue down the path of darkness, frustrated by his suckitude, and become tempted by it. He could cash in and become a Blackguard. Or perhaps the DM has created a Special Quest for him, with a juicy homebrewed Atonement spell waiting at the end. Huzzah! Paladin status again! Or maybe he will forge a destiny in between, multiclass into something for a few levels until the DM allows him to change to that class fully. Having probably high Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and/or Charisma in any mix, the possibilities are many. Fighter, Warlord, Warlock, Knight, Ranger, Cleric, Avenger, and probably many others would all be strong candidates for the typical reformed/disgraced paladin.

Actually that sounds fun.






But not if I'm forced into it by an asshat DM.

 

[Pentius]

Tangential to that, imagine that you want mechanical repercussions like in the Old Days. Your Paladin, Sir Stick-in-the-mud, has just been a naughty boy. Your DM informs you, "since this is how you like it, and you've been naughty one too many times, there are consequences..."

Whoa, there. This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Dungeons and Dominatrixes.

Actually that sounds fun.
But not if I'm forced into it by an asshat DM.

Pretty much. Fallen paladin arcs are fun, if the player is in on it.

 

[mneme]

I didn't answer the poll, because while I've run a fair amount of 4e, all of it has been LFR, where I didn't have the option to change/drop the alignment system. That said:

1. I think it was a mistake to use a simplified alignment structure. If anything, adding "unaligned" into the 9-fold table would have been fine. That said, I don't have a problem with the 5-way alignment system per se--but I think that this change was probably the most gratuitous change in 4e, and utterly unecessary. It doesn't restrict what kind of character you can play, but still, this was not a sacred cow in need of slaughter.

2. On the other hand, I think the amount of system attached to the alignment system in 4e is more or less exactly right. Sure, paladins, avengers and clerics have to match their god's alignment (or in some cases be unaligned), but with only 3 PC alignments (in most games) to choose from, that's not a huge deal even if you're using domain feats.

3. And on the other side of the coin, I think the amount of system attached to alignment in 3e and lower was simply terrible. Alignment detection spells were probably the worst game mechanic in any game -- a way to throw spells around pointlessly instead of roleplaying, and for players to kill or shun NPCs even when those NPCs hadn't done anything wrong. Moreover, the stronger alignment spells were some of the most broken (and unbalanced) spells in the game -- Circle of Protection against Evil was good enough that it was worth spending a feat on the Neutral Good celestial familar just for that (not to mention having a familiar with greater teleport at will was kinda neat), and then we get to the 7th level agnment spells, which were Just Wrong. For starters, they didn't interact with the rest of the game right--they were no save shutdown effects, and weren't always stopped by some of the logical protections. And it was trivially to "accionpurposely shut down some of your own party members with one, assuming you were good or lawful and there were non-good or non-lawful members of the party. But aside from that, they weren't even vaguley balanced -- I mean, Blasphemy worked on any monster in the area, and dazed (4e stuned) any monster of up to caster level, weakend any monster lower, and paralyzed monsters of 2 levels lower or worse (and killed at -5, but they all did that). Dictum (the law equivalent) Deafened, then slowed, then paralyzed creatures in the area. Word of Chaos Deafened, then Stunned, then Confused anyone who -heard- the spell. And Holy Word Deafened, then Blinded, then Paralyzed creatures who -heard- the spell.

How is this at all fair? I mean, you have two completely stupid capricious differences between these spells:

1. Law and Evil affect qualifying characters who are in range, even if they're deaf. Good and Chaos only affect creatures who hear them. Why, I ask you? Did anyone think this through, or was it just a carry over of careless wording from prior editions?

2. The first and second effects on the spells weren't even a little equal! Blasphemy was just better than the rest! Everything else Deafened equal level creatures (a status effect that did all of -nothing-..oh, wait, it gave spells with a verbal component a small failure chance? Yeah, nothing.) But Blasphemy Dazed -- completley shutting down what was likely the entire party. And on the second rank (lower level than caster level), Blasphemy weakened, Dictum slowed, Word of Chaos Stunned, and Holy Word Blinded -- here, everything is pretty serious, except Dictum (guess law casters are out of luck?) (as "weakened" means "drop Str by 2d6 for 2d4 rounds", which might very well paralyze a weaker opposing caster), but again, there was no effort made to balance the spells at all, and they could seriously hose high level fights.

So really, someone misses the amount by which earlier editions had the system interact with alignments? If I ran the zoo, I'd go back to the 3x3 system, but keep the current alignment entanglement--maybe add some feats for alignment use, and I'd weaken alignment match reqiurements and make them "if you're a divine caster who uses a holy symbol, you must either be Unaligned or match -one- part of your god's alignment"". I can't even express how much I don't miss alignment detects and the rest.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

he's telling me that my interpretation of my character is wrong,

No, he's telling you that, within the framework of the class you've chosen, you may be about to experience a negative effect on your PC's mechanic if you do what you say you're going to do. You know, like choosing to have your pre-4Ed Wizard adventure in Cold-Iron Plate Armor. Or like having your cleric switch gods every once in a while, then deciding his god-shopping days are over, and trying to return to the faith of his initiation into the priesthood.

You can still choose to do so, but there is a price.

And the price, in the paladin's case, is loss of abilities granted him by his/her god because he violated his covenant with that god (much like the fickle friar).

And while it sucks on a mechanical level- moreso than any other analogous choice in the game- it definitely models many of the literary inspirations for the class.* Lose your faith & break your covenant, lose your powers & gifts.

That said, I fail to see how the lack of alignment hard-coded into the game stops you from playing a paladin based on literary tropes. Just not seeing it.

The 4Ed Paladin has no rules by which he can render himself powerless by putting his own mortal desires (or doubts, or prejudices) ahead of the dictates of his or her covenant with the divine. Example: Lancelot gives in to lust, and loses his supernatural abilities that made him Queen's Champion; in some tellings of the tale, it is as if he is stricken with disease. It's not just roleplay-level fluff- he is rendered less competent because of his breaking of a vow.

Other paladins of legend could ascertain a being's moral compass by "looking into the heart" of those they encountered.

All that is modeled in pre-4Ed pallys, not in their alignmentless successors.

(In addition, there is, AFAIK, no mechanic by which a "fallen" character can redeem himself in 4Ed, but I admit I don't know all the rituals.)

Even if, like me, you believe there should be holy warriors for all divine beings, they shouldn't be using minor variations of the same codes, nearly identical mechanics & powers, etc.




* except that, according to many of the legends, paladinhood could be regained by atonement and rededication.

 

[Pentius]

Iirc, questing for Atonement was still possible in D&D.

But it is an interpretation thing. The wizard example isn't. The arcane spell failure rules are fairly clear: wear armor, spells might fail. Alignment-based punishment mechanics, on the other hand, puts the DM's interpretation of alignment first, and you're just buggered if yours doesn't match up. Again, I know it's good to talk it out with your DM before playing a paladin(I watched a friend's paladin fall to learn that). But in my example, I was playing a Barbarian. Who honestly thinks to talk to their DM before playing Barbarian to make sure they act Chaotic enough?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

No, he's telling you that, within the framework of the class you've chosen, you may be about to experience a negative effect on your PC's mechanic if you do what you say you're going to do.

Sure, that's fine. As long as the DM isn't just being an asshat. Back In The Day, I do recall more than one asshat DM using loose wording in the alignment chapter and/or ridiculously bad judgement call to invoke the dreaded alignment rules.

"Do that, and you'll have an XP penalty! You'll lose your class!"

The rules are fine as long as they're not abused by the one person that everyone is putting their faith in to have a good time. Maybe you've had nothing but golden DMs over the years, but lots and lots of folks didn't. And it sucked. That's all we're saying.

You know, like choosing to have your pre-4Ed Wizard adventure in Cold-Iron Plate Armor. Or like having your cleric switch gods every once in a while, then deciding his god-shopping days are over, and trying to return to the faith of his initiation into the priesthood.

Except it isn't like ANY of those things. Alignment is full of grey area and wildly open to the whims and interpretation of individual DMs. Those other things you mentioned are very binary. Is your mage wearing plate or isn't he? Nothing like, "that doesn't count because he was wearing it under the light of the full moon on a Saturday!"

You can still choose to do so, but there is a price.

And the price, in the paladin's case, is loss of abilities granted him by his/her god because he violated his covenant with that god (much like the fickle friar).

And while it sucks on a mechanical level- moreso than any other analogous choice in the game- it definitely models many of the literary inspirations for the class.* Lose your faith & break your covenant, lose your powers & gifts.

Fair enough, and as I pointed out upthread, I don't even mind if this is something both parties agree to, or if the player in question is undeniably acting out of the bounds of alignment. But there is just too much grey area in many cases for it to rest with the DM's judgement alone, especially with one who doesn't understand the philosophies well, or doesn't allow any different points of view.

Even in fantasy cultures, there will be different viewpoints.