An asshat DM will be an asshat DM no matter how clear the rules.
And, for the record, I've had my share of asshat game masters- alignment was never their choice for Implements of Abuse.
Last edited:
D&D 4E Poll for 4e DMs: Alignment System
- Thread starter Lanefan
- Start date
An asshat DM will be an asshat DM no matter how clear the rules.
And, for the record, I've had my share of asshat game masters- alignment was never their choice for Implements of Abuse.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
Yeah, the misunderstanding of chaos was just as, if not more often misunderstood than any other.
How many moron players did you have to deal with that were using Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to act like an ass? I can't count them on my hands.
Being chaotic does not mean, "you must break laws," as another poster indicated that his DM insisted. That's a ludicrous interpretation, unless the character had a history of being a violent anarchist (and even anarchist is something that most people misunderstand).
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
Fine, but frankly, why give them more opportunity to do so than you absolutely must?
Or what about when the DM *isn't* being a deliberate jerk, and simply fails to understand alignment? Or your version of alignment. Interpreting it is hardly set in stone.
Sure, you can try to talk about it, if you want to play an alignment-sensitive character, but that only goes so far. Sometimes a DM can still surprise you with bad judgement, even after you "work things out".
Generally, I've noticed this being a problem more when you have a DM that is a hard-core moral absolutist (or an authoritarian, but see above), particularly when the player is less so. I'm not even going to go as far as to say the player is a moral relativist, because, frankly, you don't need to go that far to have a divergence of opinion on the matter that leads to arguing.
Anecdotally, removing alignment mechanics has drastically reduced in-game alignment arguing pretty much to zero in my group. We still use a variant on the 9-point system (or more accurately, we write whatever we want in that space, including any of the old ones, if desired), more or less, but nobody has need to fight about it. But then, that might be a factor of maturity, and that we are now all more or less on the same page, or tolerant enough to not be a jerk about it.
If that's the case, then you're fortunate indeed.
Last edited:
Pentius
First Post
Luckily, I can still count my asshat Chaotic Neutral characters on my hands. Or perhaps it isn't luck, as I've only DMed a few times.
That was me.
True. But I still don't want to hand them extra tools for asshattery.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
We-ell, this is an eye-opener - the second one this week! I'll explain the other one below...
Thanks for the discussion and the votes so far, all; don't take this as the end, but as a sum-up so far and an explanation as to why this poll exists.
Right now the votes stand thusly:
5-point system - 45
9-point system - 13
other system - 3
no alignments - 43
which is not at all what I expected. From reading all sorts of posts over the last few years I had come to believe that 4e's alignment system was one thing many 4e DMs had abandoned in favour of the 9-point system of old. Clearly, at least from this poll, such is not the case. Instead, they've abandoned it for...nothing at all; or kept the system as written.
From my own perspective, as a dyed-in-the-wool 1e-er, I can't imagine the game without alignments, if only to keep the aligned-item mechanics. I'm not a big fan of the Detect spells but they kinda come with the territory; though alignments in my game have lots of shades of gray to them.
All this comes out of an alignment debate raging around my game right now, sparked by one of my players quoting some article from either TSR or WotC that gave Batman as an example of LG. "Batman???", said some of us rather emphatically, as we were long used to Superman as the archtypal LG.
But then I did some digging, and found - much to my surprise and amazement - that the definition of what each alignment represents has in fact morphed quite significantly over the years. I compared the 1e descriptions with those from 3e - and in 3e terms Batman *would* be LG where in 1e he'd be LN or N at best.
So I wondered what had happened with 4e; whether the posts I thought I'd been reading were reflecting the overall state of things (so far, not), and this poll is the result.
Also, while Paladins are the class most often brought up in alignment debates, Clerics and old-time Monks also have to watch their p's and q's; as will soon enough become evident in my game...
Lan-"some things that should not have been forgotten, were lost"-efan
Thanks for the discussion and the votes so far, all; don't take this as the end, but as a sum-up so far and an explanation as to why this poll exists.
Right now the votes stand thusly:
5-point system - 45
9-point system - 13
other system - 3
no alignments - 43
which is not at all what I expected. From reading all sorts of posts over the last few years I had come to believe that 4e's alignment system was one thing many 4e DMs had abandoned in favour of the 9-point system of old. Clearly, at least from this poll, such is not the case. Instead, they've abandoned it for...nothing at all; or kept the system as written.
From my own perspective, as a dyed-in-the-wool 1e-er, I can't imagine the game without alignments, if only to keep the aligned-item mechanics. I'm not a big fan of the Detect spells but they kinda come with the territory; though alignments in my game have lots of shades of gray to them.
All this comes out of an alignment debate raging around my game right now, sparked by one of my players quoting some article from either TSR or WotC that gave Batman as an example of LG. "Batman???", said some of us rather emphatically, as we were long used to Superman as the archtypal LG.
But then I did some digging, and found - much to my surprise and amazement - that the definition of what each alignment represents has in fact morphed quite significantly over the years. I compared the 1e descriptions with those from 3e - and in 3e terms Batman *would* be LG where in 1e he'd be LN or N at best.
So I wondered what had happened with 4e; whether the posts I thought I'd been reading were reflecting the overall state of things (so far, not), and this poll is the result.
Also, while Paladins are the class most often brought up in alignment debates, Clerics and old-time Monks also have to watch their p's and q's; as will soon enough become evident in my game...
Lan-"some things that should not have been forgotten, were lost"-efan
Oh, yes, absolutely. It's quite clear that players misinterpreting Chaos (and usually not Law -- Lawful Evil was actually an amazingly cool alignment; a good way to make uncomfortable allies and interesting villains, though players sometimes felt compelled to play asshat paladins) was Wizards' motivation for dropping the 2-axis system. I do understand this--but it was also an iconic system, contained some interesting philosophical insights, and easily -could- be used properly.
Regarding paladins, I don't think "the GM judges whether you're playing your alignment" is a necessary mechanic for handling fallen paladins. For a much more satisfying way to handle such arcs, why not give all paladins a "virtue" feature and a "vice" feature. One feature is primary, and determines whether you're a paladin or a blackguard. But in times of dire need, you can use the other feature as well, getting excellent damage by pulling on your rage as a paladin (or whichever vice you chose), or even drawing on your inner compassion to protect or heal as a blackguard. However, every time you do this, you must roll a 6 sided die; if it rolls lower than the total number of times you've used this ability over your career (or something; I'd have it reset after it hit 7), you immediately lose many of your main powers and either flip immediately, or must make atonement or conversion to recover them. Put the player in control of how dark her character goes, and it's cool again. (and, of course, the GM could rule a game with the option to award virtue and vice "points" and the ability to judge player actions using this mechanic).
Regarding no game other than D&D being able to manage classic paladins...what about Pendragon? The "virtue/vice" mechanics in that game are -solid-. (And while "paladins" are a D&D trope that is not part of the Matter of Britain, it's not at all hard to make a holy knight).
Last edited:
Pentius
First Post
As another poster mentioned upthread, artifacts' concordance mechanics provide a very similar function to aligned items. For example, the Eye of Vecna, listed in the DMG, doesn't require you to be Evil, but it gains concordance(and thus, grants the character more power) if you "Betray a close friend in dire straits" or "wrest an important secret from a captive"(among other things). Conversely, if the owner or his party kill undead, or if a more powerful arcane caster is around, the Eye will begin to tire of its current owner, planting horrible visions in his mind, or even trying to kill him outright to get away and onto a more suitable host.
It has the same basic idea as the 1e Eye, that is, making the user Evil. But the 4e version just encourages specific Evil actions and discourages specific Good ones, as opposed to the 1e Eye's "the user become Neutral Evil". It's a far sight harder to misinterpret whether you've killed an undead than it is to misinterpret if you're being Evil enough.
It has the same basic idea as the 1e Eye, that is, making the user Evil. But the 4e version just encourages specific Evil actions and discourages specific Good ones, as opposed to the 1e Eye's "the user become Neutral Evil". It's a far sight harder to misinterpret whether you've killed an undead than it is to misinterpret if you're being Evil enough.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
I agree, that's a better way to do it, but some DMs seem to delight in stripping paladins of their powers. That's the part I take issue with.
Not just paladins, either. I once had a DM threaten to strip my chaotic good ranger of his status for something completely in character. Who says I can't finish a vanquished foe just because I'm 'good'? And does doing it once mean I'm no longer good, even though this is the villain who slaughtered my village?
He was just pissed because I used a cheap ability to shut down his big villain, and tried to take it out on my character. Fortunately, the rest of the group backed me up, thinking that it was a pretty cool and clever move (it was) and he backed down. That was 15 years ago now, but it was one of those things that 'stuck' and to this day reminds me of why I generally don't like alignment mixing with mechanics.
Yes, the detect spells are awful, too.
Just to be clear, I personally have never seen a RPG without alignment that handles Paladins well. While I've played about 100 systems, they weren't all FRPGs, and there are more out there I don't know than I do.
Pendragon's Pallys may be Sir Shiznit on White Horses with spinning hooves & booming systems, but I haven't played the game so I can't speak to what they're like.
