TS' Book of Heroic Might: Alignment as it is Meant to Be

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've been complaining that 4e made alignment an obsolete concept, but I've changed my mind. With no existing alignment crunch in RAW, I can finally use alignment exactly the way it should be used without the inconvenience of changing any rules!

The Tequila Sunrise Book of Heroic Might: How alignment is meant to be. Comments and critiques are welcome.

TS

 

[Crashy75]

I like your discription of alignment much better than the PHB. God I hate it when all "good" characters are 'on the same side.' That's just so... boring.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I like your discription of alignment much better than the PHB. God I hate it when all "good" characters are 'on the same side.' That's just so... boring.

Yeah, Good and Evil are only monolithic in children's stories and bad teen fiction. It's much more interesting when the Good guys are only waiting for Sauro...*cough* I mean, the BBEG to fall before going back to each other's throats.

TS

Also, 4e Vow of Poverty coming soon!

 

[Crashy75]

Yeah, I'm a real cthulhu fan. I don't have any "official" alignments IMC. Demons and such do have a certain... emanation, however. As for the gods- think ebberon/ravenloft. I was really happy to read clerics don't lose their powers if they act contrary to their deity/faith (I use faiths not all of which have a deity). One less house rule.

It's funny because sometimes when I'm a pc, I really enjoy playing the virtuous paladin with a true heart of gold. Of course, most of the time, I play real bastards that 'think' they're good.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

C'mon folks, I'm not really as aggressive as the thread title suggests. Give my Book a glance and tell me what you think.

TS

 

[Boarstorm]

Paladins have a level 1 encounter power called smite evil, and a level 1 daily power called smite evil.

That might lead to some confusion, methinks.

 

[bardolph]

I think 4e made the right decision by removing Alignment entirely from the mechanics of the game, excepting deity selection. Adding alignment-restricted powers seems like a step backwards for me.

Let characters be the enforcers of alignment, rather than game mechanics.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Paladins have a level 1 encounter power called smite evil, and a level 1 daily power called smite evil.

That might lead to some confusion, methinks.

Yeah, the two 1st level cleric powers are both called Holy Word. I may just end up changing all my powers' names to the PHB powers that they're based on and just add 'Celestial' or 'Holy.' It's hard to be creative with dozens of new power names.

I think 4e made the right decision by removing Alignment entirely from the mechanics of the game, excepting deity selection. Adding alignment-restricted powers seems like a step backwards for me.

Let characters be the enforcers of alignment, rather than game mechanics.

Ah, a doubter! Personally I think removing all alignment mechanics from 4e is the step backward. Or maybe more accurately, a step lameward. If I wanted to play a game where alignment was just a matter of PC enforcement, I'd play d20 modern or any rpg other than D&D. Alignment has always been one of the defining traits of D&D, and one of the things that I think makes it truly great. I think it's a shame that so few DMs have been able to implement alignment so that it enriches the game rather than degrades it, to the point where so many gamers feel the only solution is to relegate alignment to a non-issue. Hence my "how to" that prefaces all my homebrew aligned powers.

TS

 

[bardolph]

If I wanted to play a game where alignment was just a matter of PC enforcement, I'd play d20 modern or any rpg other than D&D. Alignment has always been one of the defining traits of D&D, and one of the things that I think makes it truly great.

There's a lot that's good about D&D that has nothing to do with Alignment. Even if Alignment is a "defining" trait of D&D, the mechanics of it have been unplayable as far as I'm concerned. Why is it that every single NPC "traitor" character had to lug around an amulet of undetectable alignment in order to keep low-level Paladins and Clerics from ruining the plot? It was a stupid fix to a stupid mechanic. By taking out the stupid mechanic, you also get rid of all the useless magic items that were designed to "fix" this stupid mechanic. I say good riddance.

I think it's a shame that so few DMs have been able to implement alignment so that it enriches the game rather than degrades it, to the point where so many gamers feel the only solution is to relegate alignment to a non-issue. Hence my "how to" that prefaces all my homebrew aligned powers.

I see what you're saying. I just don't believe that "+2 versus evil creatures" enriches anything. It gets much worse when two supposedly "good" groups need to go to war with each other, and all of their alignment-based powers suddenly go on the fritz. Why can't followers of Moradin and Bahamut have disagreements from time to time?

4e takes a major step forward, by creating powers that can distinguish between "allies" and "enemies." This distinction alone renders most alignment-based mechanics obsolete.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There's a lot that's good about D&D that has nothing to do with Alignment. Even if Alignment is a "defining" trait of D&D, the mechanics of it have been unplayable as far as I'm concerned. Why is it that every single NPC "traitor" character had to lug around an amulet of undetectable alignment in order to keep low-level Paladins and Clerics from ruining the plot? It was a stupid fix to a stupid mechanic. By taking out the stupid mechanic, you also get rid of all the useless magic items that were designed to "fix" this stupid mechanic. I say good riddance.

I see that as a problem with certain spells, rather than alignments themselves. I'm not sorry that Detect Evil is gone, because it was a plot-destroyer. I'm also not sorry that class alignment restrictions are gone, because that was possibly the biggest problem that made gamers irrationally hateful of alignment. Again, not a problem with alignments themselves but a problem with certain classes.

I see what you're saying. I just don't believe that "+2 versus evil creatures" enriches anything. It gets much worse when two supposedly "good" groups need to go to war with each other, and all of their alignment-based powers suddenly go on the fritz. Why can't followers of Moradin and Bahamut have disagreements from time to time?

Who said they can't have disagreements just because they're both Good aligned? It's an awfully simplistic world where all Good aligned religions/cultures/races are monolithically aligned with each other all the time. That's why I gave each of my Good-aligned powers an effect on Good aligned foes, because Good does fight itself sometimes.

TS