Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5684483" data-attributes="member: 59248">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.</blockquote>

Verification