They Killed Alignment

[essenbee]

Also, if the new alignment system "killed your CN rogue" then you don't know how to roleplay.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Wombat]

Pesonally, I wish they would go the whole hog and kill the sacred bovine that is Alignment -- it isn't really needed.

That's what roleplaying is for.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Funnily enough, years ago when we were making up characters, one of my players smirks at his sheet and goes " 'Alignment', huh, are we really ever gonna use this for anything??" I go "Not really nope", he says "so cross it out?" I go "yep". So ends the story of my problems with alignment Mearls should have done the same thing in 4e is MHO. But oh well.

I ran my last campaign in 3.5 without alignment as well. Alignment meant some people where doing silly stuff and saying "its because my character is AlignmentX"

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I don't think there ever really was an alignment "problem." Those who didn't like the concept simply ignored it. Those who liked it used it.

I think it's been dumbed down. Either get rid of it entirely or leave it the way it was.

Heck, they could have left it the way it was and just broaden the whole Neutral concept to the way 4E has it.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Bottom line--I don't care what the Core books say in 4e, 5e, or 147e. I'm gonna roll up a rogue, put CG down as his alignment, and play him that way.

MrG

You know what's awesome? Not only can you do this, it doesn't affect the mechanics of the game in any way, so you can do it with positively zero effort on the part of yourself or the DM.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

If you just ripped those 2-3 pages out of your PHB, it would have absolutely no effect on the game. No player ever gets to find out what the alignment is of a monster or NPC, and the only way anyone ever finds out what your alignment is is by your own admission (or by deduction based on your roleplaying, but that is of course your personality and values and not alignment as a game mechanic).

I'd like to settle the "does alignment still exist" question with what I like to call the Cheese Fondue Axiom:
If, for any game mechanic, the term "cheese fondue" is as acceptable a value as the prescribed terminology, the rule is meaningless and might as well not exist.

Let's try it out:
1. "Hit: Deal 3[W]+cheese fondue radiant damage." Unacceptable. Numbers still count in 4th Edition.
2. "Alignment: Cheese Fondue." Acceptable. Alignment means nothing. Feel free to ignore this line if you're too good for it.

Elegant, yet robust, the Cheese Fondue Axiom puts this debate to rest.

If you don't want alignment, then it can not exist in your game.
If you want the old alignment system back, then you can go through and assign 2nd/3rd Edition alignments to all characters.
If you're new to roleplaying and have trouble setting bounds for your fictitious persona, you can use the 4th Edition alignment system and it's a happy reminder that your character is "Good" but not necessarily "Lawful Good."

 

[Obryn]

I am SO happy alignment is divorced from the rules.

You ignored 3.5's alignment rules at your peril. Seriously, between DR types, weapon damages, and dozens of spell effects - alignment was hard-coded into the system.

I ran an Arcana Evolved game for a long time, and that game has no alignments whatsoever. Amazingly, it works great.

I'll present the alignments to my players, but really - I could care less what they pick. If they want to be Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good, more power to them. Hell, they can write-in Republican or Democrat, for all I care.

-O

 

[Digital M@]

Funnily enough, years ago when we were making up characters, one of my players smirks at his sheet and goes " 'Alignment', huh, are we really ever gonna use this for anything??" I go "Not really nope", he says "so cross it out?" I go "yep". So ends the story of my problems with alignment Mearls should have done the same thing in 4e is MHO. But oh well.

Yup, never used it used it for PCs except for magic where it was build into the rules. Now it is not in the rules. It seems it is just a tool to help players remember to stay focused/consistent- on character behavior

 

[pemerton]

I for one love the old alignment system--its robust, clear, and makes sense to me. I know some folks don't like it, but I personally never got confused by the shades of gray, never felt straightjacketed by it, and never used it as a RP crutch.

Are the American revolutionaries chaotic - the Declaration of Independence declares it as self-evident that all are created equal and endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - or lawful - the US Constitution, which implements the Lockean theory of government expressed by the Declaration of Independence, has the rule of law as one of its most important guiding principles?

Law/Neutral/Chaos makes sense and, like you say, harkens back to the tradition OD&D inherited from Anderson and Moorcock.

That is OK for games where the main focus is on the struggle between rational order and irrational destructive cosmic forces. The problem with its implementation in D&D is (i) that mundane political opinions also get dragged under the lawful/chaotic label, and (ii) there is a default genre assumption that cosmic chaos is the enemy. The new CE captures this genre assumption quite well.

I don't think there ever really was an alignment "problem." Those who didn't like the concept simply ignored it. Those who liked it used it.

Your use of the plural "those" here elides the problem: that if players and GMs had differeing opinions about moral matters, the old alignment system made those differences of opinion an obstacle to successful play.

The new system, by shedding any suggestion of totality as a moral framework and instead honing in on certain genre-appropriate moral questions, is I think less likely to produce those sorts of problems.