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

[johnsemlak]

Still, in its very original form, it was borrowed from Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson. Moorcock has done the most with it - most (and we're talking dozens) of his novels deal with the struggle between Chaos and Law. So maybe the good/evil axis should be dropped? (or not).

I think the good/evil axis is a firm part of epic fantasy by many authors, most importantly Tolkien and his imitators.

 

[MerricB]

Louise Cooper is also a good writer of the Law/Chaos divide (and I generally prefer her treatment to Moorcock's).

Cheers!

 

[MonsterMash]

Keep it, but make it part of a set of optional rules including an allegiance system based on D20M rules and including options for codes of honour like the Conan RPG.

Personally I prefer to use a more OD&D/Moorcockian Law/Neutral/Chaos system.

 

[Rasyr]

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...

How does it improve the game?

 

[Rasyr]

Like a class, an alignment tells you with a single word masses of information that are directly relevant to how you should play that character.

This is where I have problems with alignment. To me, it should be a descriptor of how you play your character, it should NOT be telling you how to play your character.

It's not sophisticated, but rather it's shorthand, so people take it for granted and think they're above it, ignorant of the large amount of work it's doing for them and the space it's saving.

The way it's implemented is another matter (e.g. the straightjacket approach), but again, the concept should not necessarily be dropped because the implementation is shoddy.

I am one of those who separates the mechanics from the concepts. The concept is good, bu the mechanics suck. Classes should not have alignment restrictions. Alignments should not tell you how to play your character.

IMO, how you play your character should determine your alignment. Having an alignment is, as you state, a nice quick and easy method of determining a lot of information about a character. The same applies to the words "fighter", "wizard", "monk". etc.

Thues, labels are ok, so long as they do not impose restrictions upon a character.

Given that whenever a convenience like this or the class-based system comes up and everyone wants to ditch it, or the implied setting as a whole, ignorant of the huge amount of work it's doing for everyone, I'm rather glad that you guys aren't designing 4E!

Quite frankly? Sheesh Merric, maybe we should do away with monster names too, there's no mechanical reason for them either! None of these mechanically irrelevant tags like "goblin" or "red dragon", we'll call them all "Monster" and be done with it...

Actually, alignments should be on par with Monster names. There to give an easy descriptor, to add flavor, not as a rules mechanic that limits or restricts a character's behavior.

 

[Umbran]

Alignments should not tell you how to play your character.

Alignments should not have the DM or other players telling you how to play your character. But if you, as a player, want and choose to use them as a structure for how your character should behave, then all is good. What's wrong with a player saying, "I want to play a character who is Good"?

 

[diaglo]

Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral.

 

[Gold Roger]

They are excelent guidelines. Alignment based spells are one big reason to keep them as well.

As was stated, alignment should not tell you how to play your char, how you play your char determines his alignment, but choosing it before play tells your DM what to expect.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I like alignment, but as far as utility, perhaps it can be replaced by a 'type'. For example, an intelligent item, instead of having an alignment, could have type 'good' for something like an intelligent sword that wants to help people and 'evil' for something that wants to commit acts of actrocity.

 

[Rasyr]

Alignments should not have the DM or other players telling you how to play your character. But if you, as a player, want and choose to use them as a structure for how your character should behave, then all is good. What's wrong with a player saying, "I want to play a character who is Good"?

Nothing is wrong with that. What I am saying is that it should not be something that is imposed upon player.

Using the current definitions, I would prefer to play Monks that are Neutral Good, however, because of alignment restrictions, I cannot. The way alignment currently works, I have to play it as a Lawful character.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the concepts of alignment, it is the forced mechanical implementation that is the problem. A character's alignment should reflect his actions, not dictate his actions.

Thus, it is still possible to include alignments, but as flavor and descriptors, not as something that is bound up in the mechanics of the system, forcing certain strictures or forcing certain actions or types of actions.