Is the concept of Alignment no longer beneficial?

1484 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have no doubt that the alignment talk is a well-worn trail in D&D forum lore, but I wanted to get some public input on why any alignment is beneficial to the system at all.

On Balance Issues: It strikes me that the alignment system attempts to replicate the motivations in the heart and minds of the character (or monster). In 3.5 edition and previous, alignment was also treated as a condition of the character- some weapons did more damage to good guys, or could only be wielded by them, etc. Paladins could only be a certain alignment type, based on the sub-genre of paladin. 4th edition removes this concept to the sidelines, and the only support for it in the core 3 books is really in artifact behaviors.

But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and, in 3.x and back, penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again). But evil? Chaotic? Not so much.

If it serves the chaotic evil purpose of a character to pay his taxes and give his rebate to orphans with diseases, he may. It's serving his evil purpose. In fact, if one time in twenty my chaotic bard obeyed the speed limit, it would really throw the other players for a loop. How very... chaotic.

In short, the farther you stray from "Good" and "Lawful", the farther you stray from principles. An evil warrior can do quite anything and it is not good unless he does it deliberately so.

On Ethical Issues. I'm GMing a campaign right now where the players are "evil" cultists in serviec of a nihilistic Goddess, and their over-arching purpose is the destruction of everything by smashing the three Prime Planes together. But as a party, they are devoted, loyal, friendly and trustworthy. They'll stab an orphan in the head without thinking twice as long as it serves the Goddess' goals, but it is only by devotion to a cause, rather than a love of being a dirtbag, that motivates them.

To return to the point, they are only evil because their cause is evil, and because they are not governed by rules of conduct tied to principles.

Tolkien once wrote that that his wicked creature Wormtongue may 'betray himself, and do good that he does not intend' (I think it was wormtongue. Smeagol? Not the point). Self-service is not always evil, even at the cost of others. America going to war in WWII caused great harm to thousands of german soldiers, no? But they did it to preserve the good that they had made efforts to create. It is socially self-serving, but self-serving nonetheless.

So why bother? The point is this. Your characters should be motivated by principles and goals. You can roleplay that! So much behavior is already entrusted to the players to decide; why this strange categorization? I say shuck the constraints of saying that your character is always good. Anyone who's ever had an alcoholic dad would sneer at the concept that good men never fall from grace and do evil unintentionally. Very (VERY) few people want to be evil.

To quote Winston Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
My friends and I have been treating alignment this way since the beginning of our foray into D&D and roleplaying games in general.
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).



Where?

In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor.  It's as mechanically important as deity.  Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion.  It allows for person interpretations.

I think descriptions of your character are important.  If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself.  The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember.  I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality.  Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
There are alignments?

Ooooh you mean those words the players write down and then immediately ignore. Ahh yes, alignments.

They're easy, I ignore what my players write on the PC records as just not worth my time. I judge them on their actual actions and I don't think another moment about it.

If the details in MY books say creature X is evil, I tend to listen to those words though Well most of the time.

If a players dogoody Paladin is acting horrendous you can bet it will have repercussions. The gods ARE watching you know.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.

I personally believe that Alignment was never beneficial to begin with, let alone beneficial enough to rant about in any context. A system mechanic designed to hinder the individual player though a set of straight-jacked rules isn't beneficial for anyone.

The main problem is alignment-based class restrictions (Because obviously all them there barbarians have no self control, and there's no such thing as a nonlawful monk, as evidenced by the main character from every brawler ever ), which are thankfully gone (officially, rather than houseruled anyway) with 4th ed anyway, so it's all good.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).



Where?

In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor.  It's as mechanically important as deity.  Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion.  It allows for person interpretations.

I think descriptions of your character are important.  If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself.  The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember.  I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality.  Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.




Oops, I meant the 3.x paladin. Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected in the post.

I've never felt comfortable passing judgement on a play-style, so please do not misinterpret this as dismissive or condescending, but the span of players I've played with over the years are enthusiastic about the behavior of their PCs, and if incredibly strong ambition were in line with that, I can't imagine that such a character-defining trait needing a reminder.

But different strokes for different folks, right?

I guess that it all depends on how willing the DM is to criticize characters for not thinking of that word on your sheet when they ask you what you want the PC to do. An evil character, in my experience, is far less accountable to always rob that orphan than a good character is to always defend the goblin-besieged town.
In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor.  It's as mechanically important as deity. 



Au contraire, deities allow for different domain feats to be selected.  And with the domain synergy feat now available, domain powers rock my socks.

Besides artifacts, the only thing alignment affects is which dieties you can serve (and this doesn't matter if you or the god are nuetral).

Story-driven punishments for actions out of alignment are always fun.  The consequences do not have to be mechanical, but if a lawful good pally starts eating babies to gain immortality, I bet Bahamut's going to be PISSED.

Alignments serve as a sort of RP aid. Players can look at the descriptions for the alignments and at least try to follow the RP concepts given. In principle, it provides a sort of framework for character intent and spirit if nothing else.
But the awful truth is, alignments are limiting in core mechanics as well. A lawful good character is largely criticized for performing evil acts, and even penalized in the more devout classes (paladin, I'm looking at you again).



Where?

In general, the game treats it as just a basic descriptor.  It's as mechanically important as deity.  Which doesn't care if it's lip-service or devotion.  It allows for person interpretations.

I think descriptions of your character are important.  If not for others, they are a reminder to oneself.  The shorter the descriptor, the easier it is to remember.  I sometimes am inclined to forget that I intend my Tiefling Warlock to be willing to eat babies for immortality.  Which by looking at "evil" on his character sheet, I'm reminded.




Oops, I meant the 3.x paladin. Thanks for pointing it out. Corrected in the post.

I've never felt comfortable passing judgement on a play-style, so please do not misinterpret this as dismissive or condescending, but the span of players I've played with over the years are enthusiastic about the behavior of their PCs, and if incredibly strong ambition were in line with that, I can't imagine that such a character-defining trait needing a reminder.

But different strokes for different folks, right?

I guess that it all depends on how willing the DM is to criticize characters for not thinking of that word on your sheet when they ask you what you want the PC to do. An evil character, in my experience, is far less accountable to always rob that orphan than a good character is to always defend the goblin-besieged town.



I remember when 4th came out the first character I rolled was a Paladin. One of the other players saw my alignment and was like "dude, is that a house rule already?". I was excited to be able to play a by the book non-lawful paladin.

As for alignments themselves, there is only one reason I ask my players to pick one: so I can ballpark how they MIGHT react in a given situation. Though like most DMs on these boards, I tend to gauge that more by the characters in-game actions anyways, but if there's a character I have no experience with it helps.

I would not miss the concept at all if the game never made mention of it in the PHB. For monsters though, different story. I think they're helpful to gauge generally how monsters behave but again, you mileage may vary. I've had my share of benevolent chromatic dragons and virtuous hobgoblins.
4th Edition did a pretty good job in isolating the mechanics from concepts (like alignment) that tended to hurt more often then help campaigns and character development.  Fortunately, alignment has basically no bearing on gameplay what-so-ever now, apart from reminding players that are supposed to act a certain way.  Why they didn't throw it away entirely?  Probably hanging onto the sacred cow that it was in previous editions.  Personally, I hate the new alignment system almost as much as I hated the old one, so I think they at least did it right in making it easily ignorable.

Having said that...  I often think that what makes for good gaming is often more the "restrictions" then the "options"...  for instance, I play a pretty dim-witted cleric who is illiterate.  There's no rules that say he can't read, in fact there are rules that explicitly say he can read, but I blatantly ignore them and say he can't.  This has come to bite our party in the ass several times over (DM:  "You find a letter written in Draconic on the mysterious and recently deceased assassin who just tried to kill you.  Can anyone read Draconic?"  Me: "Well, I can speak it...")  While it's certainly been a hindrance on the character, making things less easy for him, etc., it's been very fun to play, so I stick with it, even when it doesn't serve my interests.  In much the same way, many people enjoy playing Lawful Good Paladins.  Sure, it would be easier to just take the gold for ourselves, but for many people it's more fun to do things the hard way and give it back to villagers it was stolen from.

In this way, I guess it is hepful to leave this mechanic in for players, particularly new ones, who might not think to intentionally restrict themselves in such a way without it, while us more experienced players find new and more exciting ways to restrict ourselves (my illiterate cleric also doesn't understand the concept of currency, so he throws away any and all gold we find... makes getting new magic items significantly more difficult Laughing)
As always, the impact of alignment in games of D&D is entirely based on how you choose to handle it.

In my view, alignment was never meant to represent a complete psychological profile of a character's views, motivations and goals, it was just meant to sum up in two words where your characters stand in regards to Law-Chaos and Good-Evil.

Obviously characters are far more indepth than two words could ever sum up, but it is quite handy to have a general idea of which way someone is swinging. And as in real life, people can sometimes do things outside of their alignment, but still be that alignment, it's about consistency.

In the above example of an evil aligned person person following the law for his own ends, yes, the action is lawful, but it's the intent behind that action which counts, and as said, it was 1 time out of 20, so the 19 other times he was being chaotic and/or evil, i'm pretty sure that overall that makes him chaotic evil.

As for the Paladin, he is meant to be played as an exemplar of Law and Good, so of course it is looked down upon if he performs a chaotic or evil act. However, as it currently stands in 3.5 edition, there is no comparative class to the Paladin. Oh sure, the Blackguard comes close, but he lacks the code of conduct of the Paladin. There isn't even a rule saying that you lose your Blackguard powers if you stop being evil, only that you must be evil to start on the path. I'm sure most people would house-rule that in order to keep his powers he must continue to be evil, and that he is failing at his job if he performs a good act.

Also, when it comes down to it, often we can't be the way our alignment says we should be all the time. As it says in the player's handbook, goodness tends to mean a respect for life and sentient beings, yet good characters are often called upon to fight and/or kill some in order to protect others. They may not wish too, as i'm sure most good characters would rather live in a world without violence, but that is not their choice. There is a threat that can only be stopped by fighting and/or killing it, and so it must be fought and/or killed. The act of killing is of course evil, but it is in some ways mitigated by the fact that it was done for a good reason.

The same logic can apply to any of the other alignments, as i've said before it's about both action and intent, and ultimately this means consistancy. The important thing is that the majority of your actions follow your alignment, everyone drifts a little from time to time, after all, we're only mortal.

I personally feel that alignment is only a constraint if you let it be, ultimately the important thing is to have fun. If you don't like it or it doesn't work for you, then don't use it, remember, it's your world and your stories, and ultimately it comes down to you.
on a side note: since the 3rd ed blackguard requires you to be evil, you would lose a good part of your abilities since you don't meet the prc prereqs anymore.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
The game has evolved past the need for alignment if it ever needed it in the first place.  My group does not use it at all, and even in 3.5 we largley ignored it.  I am disapointed that there are a couple of paragon paths that have alignment requirments but those requirments are easily tossed out.  Here's hoping 5e does not include them at all.
Wait a minute... was the concept of Alignment ever beneficial?
Wait a minute... was the concept of Alignment ever beneficial?


Well some people thought it was at some point as an "aide to character creation." me I always saw it as a straight jacket hindering character development.
Wait a minute... was the concept of Alignment ever beneficial?


It's got to have been useful to someone somewhere for something.

I know it's great for starting arguements on the internet for example.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
Wait a minute... was the concept of Alignment ever beneficial?




I thin it was probably pretty damn useful in the earliest days of the game especially.  Imagine you open up this new game you just bought, either because you are a wargamer or a boardgamer or a kid who thinks dragons are cool.  You have no idea what a roleplaying game is because nobody really knows what a roleplaying game is, because basically there is Dungeons & Dragons and maybe a bunch of books that hobbyists trade or sell by mail.  You start flipping through it.  Fighting Guy, mage, elves, hobbits... Wait, my game piece has morality?  It doesn't matter whether I play good or evil in Risk.  And then you start playing and somebody says, hey, your character is supposed to be lawful.  Why did you do XXX?  Well, normally he is lawful but in this case...  And then before you know it, you're roleplaying.
Wait a minute... was the concept of Alignment ever beneficial?

It's got to have been useful to someone somewhere for something.

I know it's great for starting arguements on the internet for example.

Mostly only on these boards.  Every other place that I personally have seen alignment DISCUSSED the talk has been fairly civil (at least in comparison to the flame wars I've seen round these parts before, though this thread has thankfully been rather peaceful, so far).  Also, while I've seen plenty of arguments on how to interpret the alignment system or pertaining to how to categorize various fictional (and sometimes real) characters, the WotC boards are the only place I've seen the actual usefulness/flaws of the system debated so thoroughly and zealously.

Personally I'm sick of all the fighting.  I don't really mind threads like this, where the initial subject is the merit of the alignment.  What I do take issue with though is when people who do appreciate the system try to talk with each other about how to better use the system or interpret a character, only to have a hater barge in and insist that using alignment in the first place is some kind of sin.

Anyway, myself, I find alignment too be a handy shorthand, and think it's especially useful for beginners new to the concepts of RP.  While I even I appreciate the removal of most alignment based restrictions, I'm glad that it wasn't stripped completely out of 4e.  That said, I understand how some can see it as overly constraining, though I personally think they generally fail to look at it from the proper perspective.  Fortunately it's all but a non-issue in 4e, and the few remaining vestiges left are easily ignored, which is why I can't understand why the haters still feel the need to complain with such venom.
I've come to hate Alignment, mostly because other players, especially "old school" players buy far too much into the oversimplified concept of good/evil and get all bitchy when I do something selfish in-game. I got booted from a game once because I was rude to the NPCs. Wtf?
Alignment is good for two things.  1) Briefest possible description of "good bloke, decent chap, normal guy, total jerk, or son of a *****" that you can toss out when someone asks what you are playing, 2) fodder for jokes, pranks, and amusing motivational posters.
In my campaign you can have a LG cleric of Tiamat if you wanted.Religions are just different sects that worship one god who sacrificed himself to give mortals divine powers the "gods" are just saints that protected mortal in the war between the primordials and the dragons.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

When playing 3rd Edition, I desperately wanted to decouple Alignment from so many mechanics, but it was so firmly integrated it was almost impossible.  My ultimate issue was the idea that a player looks at his sheet and says 'I'm (alignment), I can't do (action)", which was bull.  Actions determined alignment, not the other way around.

Now, I did eventually do it.  I threw out alignment restrictions for classes it made no sense for (bard, monk, etc); if alignment was somehow an integral part of the character, like a paladin, I either made the class a prestige class or just threw it out.  Any alignment-based effects keyed solely to subtypes; Detect Evil would only find creatures with the Evil subtype, not any creature with the evil alignment, and so forth.

Now, with alignment and the rest of the game decoupled, I can simply say 'ignore alignment; just come up with a character personality and play that', and life is good.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
In 4e?  Its balls have been snipped.  There is nothing to Alignment anymore, period.  It is a meaningless bit of fluff that has no bearings at all on the system.  Its about as useful as a spot for eye color, hair color, bouncyness, or packedness.  A character can choose to ignore their alignment and, by the RaW, nothing will happen.  Even if they completely break the alignment of a deity their divine char worships.  Unless they are an invoker, it is always stated that breaking their code of conduct merely puts them in bad with the church, not with the God.  Now yes a DM can choose to houserule that a God punishes them directly, but that isn't what normally happens.  Basically 4e is a sociopaths dream.  They can claim to be whatever they want...they can claim to be lawful good.  Then go out and eat babies, burn down every orphanage they see, pillage the land, do unmentionable things to other beings male and female alike, all so they can get jollies and laugh about it while they have a nice toase of soylent Green and bloodwine...and at the end of the day the fact that the person is lawful good never changes...nor does it in any way possible affect what happens.  Again by the books.

Alignment has been changed to a purely roleplay thing now.   No longer is it actually strongly tied to mechanics.  Its just another stat on a character sheet that people won't fill out because they don't see what it does in game.


In previous editions?  Yeah sure it had a use.  The world cared about how you acted.  The world knew what you had done, and you were invisibly branded by the world.  Items would reject you weilding them if your view of what was right and wrong was opposed to them.  Some would even do more damage to you.  Some spells cared and would change what they did based on how you acted in the world.  God's would actually care if their followers broke codes of conduct.  People who derived their powers from upholding the law and all that is good would find their powers wavering if their convictions started to waver.

In essence..in previous editions the roleplaying aspect of alignment was intrisically tied into the system.  The system itself tried to support some roleplay, and gave you a way to let the world react to certain forms of roleplay.  A reaction that would be by the books.

The only problem it had was the people who for one reason or another...chose to misuse it, and in the process hurt other peoples from.  Mind you this can be done with any rule anyway, so meh.
Even in 3.5, I had disposed of Alignment. Whenever a spell or item referenced alignment, I made the determination of what was good and what was evil on the spot. I took the system and made it a tool, rather than the shackle that it was by default.

In 4E, I have the liberty of running without Alignment completely, and I do so eagerly. 
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
In essence..in previous editions the roleplaying aspect of alignment was intrisically tied into the system.  The system itself tried to support some roleplay, and gave you a way to let the world react to certain forms of roleplay.  A reaction that would be by the books.

The only problem it had was the people who for one reason or another...chose to misuse it, and in the process hurt other peoples from.  Mind you this can be done with any rule anyway, so meh.


No the problem it had was that the rules told you exactly what happened when your alignment changed, but gave no indication of when or how that happened. 

When does the Paladin fall during a rough interrogation of a prisoner of war.  Does it matter if the prisoner is Evil?

How much does intent matter?  Is a servant who doesn't kill their boss due to lack of opportunity more or less evil then a man who kills a nation for good intentions?  Do the end results of their actions or inaction matter?

The alignment rules can't answer that.  It's pure DM fiat.  And worse it's DM fiat that the game forces you to inflict on your players so their powers work right.  That's what the problem was.  If you're going to have absolute rules, you need to attach them to absolute rules.

If on the other hand you want St Cuthbert to strip powers away from followers that stray you simply have to have an NPC St Cuthbert with a personality that reacts to the PCs actions.

Now alignments great for simple character concepts before the PC hits the dungeon, but there's a reason it's gamer jargon and not industry standard.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....

On a semirelated note, I'm reminded of one of the gbreatest stories ever. To the best of my memory, there was this guy who had a helm that reversed a creature's alignment when donned. Being the crafty individual that he is, he started clearing out caves of monsters by sticking the helm on them, making them lawful good. The DM being rather petty apparently, declared that taking away free will was a bad thing, and that the character in question was now chaotic evil.

Show
He could barely keep a straight face as he put the helmet on himself.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.

On a semirelated note, I'm reminded of one of the gbreatest stories ever. To the best of my memory, there was this guy who had a helm that reversed a creature's alignment when donned. Being the crafty individual that he is, he started clearing out caves of monsters by sticking the helm on them, making them lawful good. The DM being rather petty apparently, declared that taking away free will was a bad thing, and that the character in question was now chaotic evil.

Show
He could barely keep a straight face as he put the helmet on himself.



The Helm of Opposite Alignment.  Dumbest.  Magic Item.  EVAR.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


Alignment has been changed to a purely roleplay thing now.   No longer is it actually strongly tied to mechanics.  Its just another stat on a character sheet that people won't fill out because they don't see what it does in game.


In previous editions?  Yeah sure it had a use.  The world cared about how you acted.  The world knew what you had done, and you were invisibly branded by the world.  Items would reject you weilding them if your view of what was right and wrong was opposed to them.  Some would even do more damage to you.  Some spells cared and would change what they did based on how you acted in the world.  God's would actually care if their followers broke codes of conduct.  People who derived their powers from upholding the law and all that is good would find their powers wavering if their convictions started to waver.

In essence..in previous editions the roleplaying aspect of alignment was intrisically tied into the system.  The system itself tried to support some roleplay, and gave you a way to let the world react to certain forms of roleplay.  A reaction that would be by the books.

The only problem it had was the people who for one reason or another...chose to misuse it, and in the process hurt other peoples from.  Mind you this can be done with any rule anyway, so meh.



Are you sure you not misrepresenting anything? "The World" doen't see a jack if one is evil or good. "The World" only reacts to DM's judgment calls. So alignment tyed to the rules doens realy make anything for the world immersion or reactions. It makes game of "Guess what are DM's morals". If DM is strict on the matter he opreses world view of players, if he is lenient he opents window for exploitation. Oh and it realy gives players no say in the matter. Your powers don't work and thats it.

Now since no mystical higher force was overseeing games and it all come to persons judgment not much has changed between editions. The most promonint part that changed is there are no obviuos and arguable tools to whack the player on the side of his head for "doing the wrong thing". But you the fun loving sociophat is so wrong on no concequence thing. The person who makes the judgment call on what goes and who reacts to what haven't realy changed.

Aligment that are tyed to world mechanics are imo rather crapy form of roleplay aid. But insead of actualy aiding roleplay it straigt jackets you into DM's Point of view of specific alignment (and ooooh boy philosophy is not realy absolute thingy), while aids in creating rather wierd efect of aiding dehumanization (its ok to kill evil), rasism (all orcs be evil and the watch first point) and other forms of harmful stereotyping. Tyes between morality and game mechanics where not realy usefull when they where present and certainly wouldnt be usefull now.

Want to use alignment as an aide to roleplay? The go ahead and use it. Its still here. Do you realy need there be transgresions for bad roleplay options in mechanics to remind you what roleplay option you picked up?  
There is at least one thing I will always miss about the confluence of earlier editions of D&D's alignment systems and planar setup - the Outlands Morality Determinant. Because of how the Outlands plane worked, you were reasonably able to have the universe tell you its stance on any given action by merely enacting it frequently in a given space on the plane... in fact, someone could even use physical measurements to estimate a precise morality of an act by the change in position over time or number of commissions. I always thought that was one of the greatest unintended consequences of the D&D cosmology.


In my experience, the only pain in the butt part with alignment was how because some classes had to care about it pretty clearly, too many people I'd gamed with viewed it as either a big constraint or as a license to do things not fun for the group because it was ' what they were'. I prefer the default dissociation from alignment with the mechanical situation because it means you don't have to care about deep metaphysical details for playing paladins or barbarians, but that option is always available if a group wants to use it, as opposed to having to make an agreement to deviate from having to enforce the fiat dictates.
In 4e?  Its balls have been snipped.  There is nothing to Alignment anymore, period.  It is a meaningless bit of fluff that has no bearings at all on the system.  Its about as useful as a spot for eye color, hair color, bouncyness, or packedness.  A character can choose to ignore their alignment and, by the RaW, nothing will happen.  Even if they completely break the alignment of a deity their divine char worships.  Unless they are an invoker, it is always stated that breaking their code of conduct merely puts them in bad with the church, not with the God.  Now yes a DM can choose to houserule that a God punishes them directly, but that isn't what normally happens.  Basically 4e is a sociopaths dream.  They can claim to be whatever they want...they can claim to be lawful good.  Then go out and eat babies, burn down every orphanage they see, pillage the land, do unmentionable things to other beings male and female alike, all so they can get jollies and laugh about it while they have a nice toase of soylent Green and bloodwine...and at the end of the day the fact that the person is lawful good never changes...nor does it in any way possible affect what happens.  Again by the books.

Alignment has been changed to a purely roleplay thing now.   No longer is it actually strongly tied to mechanics.  Its just another stat on a character sheet that people won't fill out because they don't see what it does in game.


In previous editions?  Yeah sure it had a use.  The world cared about how you acted.  The world knew what you had done, and you were invisibly branded by the world.  Items would reject you weilding them if your view of what was right and wrong was opposed to them.  Some would even do more damage to you.  Some spells cared and would change what they did based on how you acted in the world.  God's would actually care if their followers broke codes of conduct.  People who derived their powers from upholding the law and all that is good would find their powers wavering if their convictions started to waver.

In essence..in previous editions the roleplaying aspect of alignment was intrisically tied into the system.  The system itself tried to support some roleplay, and gave you a way to let the world react to certain forms of roleplay.  A reaction that would be by the books.

The only problem it had was the people who for one reason or another...chose to misuse it, and in the process hurt other peoples from.  Mind you this can be done with any rule anyway, so meh.


Please, by all means. Exaggerate more. What you're posting is, after all, completely true and is in no way hyperbole or just plain stupid.
Alignment has been changed to a purely roleplay thing now.   No longer is it actually strongly tied to mechanics.  Its just another stat on a character sheet that people won't fill out because they don't see what it does in game.



I'd argue that Alignment should be a purely roleplay thing.  And people will fill out that spot if the DM explains why and how alignment might be important in their game.

In previous editions?  Yeah sure it had a use.  The world cared about how you acted.  The world knew what you had done, and you were invisibly branded by the world.  Items would reject you weilding them if your view of what was right and wrong was opposed to them.  Some would even do more damage to you.  Some spells cared and would change what they did based on how you acted in the world.  God's would actually care if their followers broke codes of conduct.  People who derived their powers from upholding the law and all that is good would find their powers wavering if their convictions started to waver.



The world doesn't care what you do.  People, on the other hand, do care what you do... if it affects them somehow.  It is better for in-game laws and reactions to act as guideposts for character actions, than for the game system to be the arbitrator.  In some worlds, killing may be heavily frowned upon, even if it's evil monsters that are being killed.  In other worlds, a Paladin can go on a killing spree and their god won't even bat an eyelid... as long as who/what the Paladin is killing is a legal target (be it all goblins, or orcs, or left handed witches).  It's easier for the DM to work with such things when it isn't enshrined in the rules.

In essence..in previous editions the roleplaying aspect of alignment was intrisically tied into the system.  The system itself tried to support some roleplay, and gave you a way to let the world react to certain forms of roleplay.  A reaction that would be by the books.

The only problem it had was the people who for one reason or another...chose to misuse it, and in the process hurt other peoples from.  Mind you this can be done with any rule anyway, so meh.



The system has always supported roleplay, however by forcing rigid alignments on characters isn't supportive, it's forced.  And for previous editions of D&D, such "enforcement" wasn't evenly applied.  Paladins had to follow the straight and narrow, while there were no penalties (aside from in-game laws) for the rogue who was lawful good, or chaotic evil.

Please, by all means. Exaggerate more. What you're posting is, after all, completely true and is in no way hyperbole or just plain stupid.



And this adds about as much to the conversation as the hyperbole does.

Alignment can be fun and very useful, especially when you're just starting out at role playing and might not think about the depths of good and evil and all between the two. Its because of alignment that many such discussions have been brought about on forums and its because of alignment that many players evolved beyond it.

Alignment is great for novice D&D players, just learning the game. When the game is more 2 dimensional roleplay, or even 1 dimensional. But after learning the game, the play style and
how to make your own character concepts, alignment is no longer needed. It served its purpose as a learning aid and gets pushed into the shadows until a new player picks up the hobby.

I'm sure most people will claim they never needed alignment and I'm sure atleast half of them are full of crap. Which translates to "most" of them, when talking about people on this forum.
Wink
Long Live Dragonlance and the Nexus! I still want an athasian nightmare beast and a warforged dragon mini! "Look, Meat, I'll tear your face off, rip your throat out and eat what's left-because that's what I do to food like you." ~Thrikreen Intimidation Tactic.
My Custom 4th edition Content (New Content:2)
* My Personal 4e Darksun Material found below: Updated Weapon Options. (critical impact, repair, salvage) http://www.4shared.com/document/bMZK2PNy/Updated_Optional_Darksun_Weapo.html 4th edition Athasian Sloth v1.2 (includes three monster write ups and a new disease) http://www.4shared.com/document/lj561SRh/4th_edition_Athasian_Sloth_v10.html 4th edition Athasian Flailer v1.0 http://www.4shared.com/document/JGi9PqSe/4th_edition__Athasian_Flailer_.html
Alignment can be fun and very useful, especially when you're just starting out at role playing and might not think about the depths of good and evil and all between the two. Its because of alignment that many such discussions have been brought about on forums and its because of alignment that many players evolved beyond it.

Alignment is great for novice D&D players, just learning the game. When the game is more 2 dimensional roleplay, or even 1 dimensional. But after learning the game, the play style and
how to make your own character concepts, alignment is no longer needed. It served its purpose as a learning aid and gets pushed into the shadows until a new player picks up the hobby.

I'm sure most people will claim they never needed alignment and I'm sure atleast half of them are full of crap. Which translates to "most" of them, when talking about people on this forum.



I disagree.  If you role play alignment your not role playing an actual character but that characters alignment that makes for a pretty bland pc.  Most groups I was in encouraged back stories and personality much the way the 4e book does it.  The dm would sit down and help the player flesh out their character, and it would further be fleshed out in game.  Alignment is a straight jacket if you use it you can't deviate from it for fear of your alignment changing, and depending on the dm any action can cause it to change, which could effect almost any character a good spell caster could not use evil spells and an evil one could not use good spells.  That was ridiculous.  Morality and people are far more complicated than alignment possibly makes them out to be.
The best use I've ever got out of alignment was to understand how a character acted before his adventuring career began. With alignment, I could easily see how character's back story fit in with NPCs.
In previous editions?  Yeah sure it had a use.  The world cared about how you acted.  The world knew what you had done, and you were invisibly branded by the world.


Yes, and that was the problem.

Not "people reacted to what you did," not "society reacted to what you did", but the physical world actually had built in morality, akin and on par with gravity and friction.

Moral philosophy was useless; good was good, and could be empirically tested, evil was evil, and could also be tested scientifically.  There was no introspection, no discourse, no enlightened understanding of interactions, there was only the cold, hard measure physically built into the world.  The guilty will suffer, the decent will thrive, these were hard-coded into the physics of the universe, with signs that allowed anyone with two brain cells to rub together to detect.

There was no reason to be anything but good, and good was hollow and void, because it was the selfish, practical thing to do.

Of course, part of that was also cosmology.  It kind of ruins the cosmic mystery if you can go and talk to your dead through the simple application of spells to learn what the afterlife is like.  The Great Wheel didn't help in this regard, dividing people nicely into alignment squares and throwing them into eternity in their designated sectors.
Discussing alignment is pretty much the same as discussing religion.

So let me just say it and get it over with. The game has always been about the hero vanquishing the forces of evil. You can't have an evil to vanquish till you paint a bullseye on it an label it evil.

Now that you have the evil to vanquish, you have to protect people from being swayed by it. So you make 'protections' vs evil. If you don't have alignment, you have basically shot the whole process in the head at the game mechnic level. After how, precisely HOW do you protect in game mechanics terms something you are unwilling to quantify?

Unless of course you want to envision a game where no one cares about anyone other than themslves, we might as well call that oh something like Vampire the Masquerade

But every game does 'something' correct, and while most of Paladium ends up looking like a poorly organized mess, they did do a neat job of 'explaining' what your alignment actually entails. You might do this, but you wouldn't do that, and this is acceptable, but only on these conditions and not those conditions. Not that gamers are going to care a hoot for their alignment in Paladium any more than 1st edition D&D or whatever game you are currently considering.

Most people don't seriously truly understand the true nature of the concept of actual evil.
Most people mistake being a jerk, a calous swine, a cretin and all round sob for evil, when really, they're not evil, merely selfish bastards.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.

Alignment is great for novice D&D players, just learning the game. When the game is more 2 dimensional roleplay, or even 1 dimensional.



I find this very unlikely.  The concept of roleplaying is not obscure anymore.  Most people have a sense of what it means, from video games, or just from popular culture.  By the time I discovered DnD, I read the 3.5 PHB and immediately felt like alignment were some of the stupidest rules I had ever seen in a game.  For one thing, they were unclear and too open to abuse and misinterpretation.  For another, the most interesting characters in most stories are those who are atypical or with a different spin on something than the norm.  A good follower of an evil god, for example, or a druid who embraced the brutality and randomness of nature.  Alignment rules not only discouraged that kind of thing, they actually disallowed it.

I think the best thing about alignment in 4e is that they changed the description from out of character to in-character.  Anybody can be good, but you are only Good if you declare yourself to be so, and even if a person declares himself to be Good, he can still end up doing evil things either without realizing it or because he feels it is necessary or because he is forced to.  That is much better, in my opinion, because it makes it into a roleplaying tool rather than an artificial construct that does more to take me out of my character's head than put me in it.
Too be honest, I'm surprised that this thread has even lasted this long. I wasn't aware that Alignment was that big of an issue for so many people on opposite sides of the coin. Who knew? And here I've always felt that Alignment was a Play Aid and nothing more, and anything more then that only served to hurt the game rather then enhance it in any justifiable or sensible way.

Well, you learn something new {or about people} every day as the saying goes.
And here I've always felt that Alignment was a Play Aid and nothing more


That's probably how it was originally intended, but that's now how it actually worked out.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.

Personally I'm sick of all the fighting.  I don't really mind threads like this, where the initial subject is the merit of the alignment.  What I do take issue with though is when people who do appreciate the system try to talk with each other about how to better use the system or interpret a character, only to have a hater barge in and insist that using alignment in the first place is some kind of sin.



Most of the time I've barged in or seen someone else barge in, it wasn't because the thread was full of people "appreciating the system trying to better use it", it's because said people were angrily yelling at each other about whether or not Batman is good, or because a player got his paladin powers stripped away by an angry DM and everyone was fighting about whether or not it was justified.  Usually the advice from the haters is "Instead of arguing about this for days on the internet and constantly worrying that your DM might wreck your character because of the different beliefs the two of you have, how about you just don't use it?"  I just haven't had much experience where people enjoyed having their powers stripped by the DM because they roleplayed against his religion/ethics or enjoyed needing to decide their character's actions by trying to guess whether the DM was feeling more liberal or fundamentalist today.  That's the real problem here - it was a system that said "You get punished if you do something naughty, but we're not telling you what those things are."  That's just asking for dramatic arguments between people with different real-life belief systems.