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

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd call that more of a Divine Challenge.

After seeing that, how could you not want to attack and try to maim this fellow to the (temporary) exclusion of all others?

 

[Grydan]

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.

 

[Fox Lee]

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

Sure. I'm not about to disagree with that. However, it's evident that they are still useful in spite of those facts, because we use them almost ubiquitously.

(Collectively, of course, personal standards obviously vary wildly.)

 

[Fox Lee]

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.

My XP button is on cooldown, so instead: THIS. Sometimes a GM is just wrong. The alignment rules are not without ambiguity, but they are not so muddy that we can't easily identify "you must constantly break every rule or become lawful" as being wrong.

...And as far as Batman is concerned, basically all long-running superhero comics have probably taken their main characters through at least 7/9 of the 3e alignments. Their personalities and morals vary so absurdly over time, they might as well be multiple characters. Just pick the right author/time period/marketing department.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except maybe Superman and Capt. Marvel- I don't know that The Big Red Cheese has ever broken a law (other than being a vigilante, just like every superhero), and the only fatalatiesn on Supes' conscience (last I checked) were Doomsday (self-defense, defense of others) and the executions of Zod, Faora and whatshisname (for planetary genocide).

Then again, I've been out of comics since 96.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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...

Out of curiosity, do you like playing paladins, clerics and monks? (As a player.)

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.

I miss alignment having a certain impact on the game too, but I'm not sorry to see stuff like Detect Evil gone.

I think the neutering of alignments in 4e was an overreaction to the occasional debates that apparently pop up. I say 'apparently,' because I've never actually witnessed an argument over alignment IRL.

I hope someday we get an edition that takes a moderate stance on alignments. For example, limiting their impact to aligned artifacts and non-paladin smiting would be just fine by me. Maybe a general feat chain that makes you a little more effective against Evil foes, so long as you remain under the broad umbrella of Good.

I'm not a fan of alignment restrictions, but I wouldn't mind a loose "All divine PCs must be within one step of their deity" rule. Anything more restrictive than that would be house ruled away though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not sorry to see stuff like Detect Evil gone.

What was your issue with Detect Evil?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

What was your issue with Detect Evil?

I'm generally not a fan of divinations, particularly ones that hang big neon signs above my villains. Old skool Detect Evil wasn't as bad in this regard, but I still don't miss it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I ask as I'm curious to see how popular 4e's alignment set-up is among those who are in a position to use/change it.

4e divorced alignment from mechanics pretty thoroughly, there's very little mechanical effect to alignment, not like 3.x where each alignment 'team' got their own suite of detect and screw-with other alignments spells.

I don't care for the 5-alignment system, I quite liked LN and CG and CN, thank you.

But, as it doesn't actually /do/ anything, it's not a major issue. Taking alignment out of the rules (and thus the metaphysics of the game world) is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it's good, because it puts moral and ethical questions back into shades of grey, like IRL. OTOH, it's bad, because it puts moral and ethical questions back into shades of grey, like IRL. Seriously, though, the way earlier eds portrayed alignment as a palpable force with very real rammifications when it came to spells and items and classes /did/ evoke a certain feel that some myth/fantasy sources do have.

Even so, the 4e aproach is good for game balance, and enables alignment as just a 'heart of hearts' aspect of the characters, rather than a detectable 'team' or cosmic force. You can always add it back in as a cosmic force rather easily, simply by designing monsters and/or artifacts that work that way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Seriously, though, the way earlier eds portrayed alignment as a palpable force with very real rammifications when it came to spells and items and classes /did/ evoke a certain feel that some myth/fantasy sources do have.

Yup.