D&D 4E Would you have alignment in 4e?

[fafhrd]

Alignment is a mechanic that creates far more problems than it solves. Ditch it.

 

[Rasyr]

(Quite frankly, if there is no game mechanical reason for alignment to exist, then it should be gone).

Personally, I see no reason for them to exist. To me, they are limiting, at least in some cases.

For example, I don't view a Paladin as needing to be Lawful Good. I see him as needing to follow a set of rules as determined by his religion. Something like a "Code of Chivalry", only geared to the specifics of the deity worshipped.

The same applies to Monks. Monk require discipline, not a lawful nature.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Chaotic Neutral, which too many players think is a license to do whatever they want. I have seen comments/complaints about this alignment too many times.

Remember, mechanics are meant to simulate things. You can have descriptors without mechanics.

The best alignment system I have ever seen is in the Palladium system. It uses alignment as a method of describing certain character traits. In D&D, it, more often than not, is used to restrict a character from performing certain actions, or tries to fit character types into a generic mold. It also tends to prevent the inclusion of cultural differences (see below).

Personally, I'd hate to see alignment go. I think it's a great tool - not for restricting player actions, but for giving meaning to the game as part of a struggle between good and evil (or law and chaos).

You can still have law, chaos, good, & evil without alignment mechanics. Of course, things will be a bit more fuzzy, as what one culture considers to be evil may not be considered to be evil in another culture. For example, you might have a culture where necromancy (or necromantic magics) are considered ok, but the next country over might consider interaction with the dead to be extremely evil.

Personally, I think that while alignments can be useful, they should be determined by character's actions, not some arbitrary definitions that can restrict actions.

For example, it could list "Evil" as actions that intentionally hurt others (that are not in self defense, or the defense of another), greed, etc. Characters who perform such actions or have such atitudes/traits, would then show up as "evil" for a "Detect Evil" spell.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's a cow, yes. But it's sacred. What can you do, really?

Of course it will be in 4e. 'Should' is just too messy to get into.

 

[Herobizkit]

The best alignment system I have ever seen is in the Palladium system.

Quoted for emphasis. When anyone has ever asked me about alignments, I have always directed them to this system. If ever I go back to using alignments, I would houserule this system into my campaigns.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I say no. Good riddance to the alignment system, I wont miss it when/if it's gone. It doesn't have to be, but it *CAN* be a straight jacket for character actions, particularly with certain GMs. Lose it and it's one less worry for players in those groups.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Wow, this one is tough. I hate alignment on so many levels, but in many ways it improves the game as well. I dunno. I'll just refuse to vote I guess...

 

[Turjan]

I voted a clear No. In my experience, D&D alignment poses more problems than it solves. I've seen such a lot of ugly metagaming that it's not funny anymore. It might be easier for the players to tell friend from foe, but this is more than outbalanced by intra-party conflict and nonsensical PC behaviour caused by alignment labels, not to speak about those superfluous alignment discussions. Yes, this may be a sign of bad roleplaying; but it's bad roleplaying I have to deal with. I found Arcana Unearthed a big relief in this regard. Suddenly, even the bad roleplayers behaved − normal .

 

[Bront]

I voted Yes.

While I generaly don't care for alignment over all, it's a usefull guide, and there are some appropriate spells that work well for it, as well as the general Deity systems.

However, the game can function well without it, though there then needs to be a few changes made (The Paladin for example looses out.)

 

[Animus]

The best alignment system I have ever seen is in the Palladium system.

...I would houserule this system into my campaigns.

I feel the same way.

 

[MacMathan]

I voted yes as it has not caused any problem IMC and I think it is a decent guide.

The caveat is, we use the 1-10 scale for each axis put forth by Monte, I find that it lends a good amount of flexibilty to alignments and allows for different degrees and types of any given alignment type.