Morality system in 4th edition?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was just wondering if someone has thought of making a moral system for 4th edition (allignment tracking,changing, point system and so on), assuming that it hasen't already been made... I've thought about it, and I ask you. Would it be a good idea or would it just be a mess? Wouldn't it bring more roleplaying, that you get more attached to your character. I would like to hear your opinion about it and discuss why and why not it would be good. Will it bring us more fun roleplaying action or will it just bring a big argument of pain...

Nah the problem with alignment systems, let alone rewards for it, is you tend to get penalised for not sticking out one path. Say you get +6 Con at Virtue 100, but every point towards Vice is a point away from Virtue.

Guess what you're now never doing, purely for the intent of a mechanical reward later, regardless of how your character would ACTUALLY develop based on the circumstances.

Roleplay is about reacting realistically and displaying a growing character, not an arbitrary number based on how well you can convince your DM that kicking that puppy was totally for the greater good.
Ah, right. I understand what you're saying. Still, if the ''system'' was good enough, I think it actually might be well put together, it would help new roleplayers find their role(which my friends currently are :P), and then when they do get into that role, expand it and then start thinking much more for themselves. But I'll have to say I agree with you most part. Besides it would be frustrating writing up all those moral points O_O. heh.
Nah, but thanks for opinion and quick reply. appreciated Smile
it would help new roleplayers find their role(which my friends currently are :P), and then when they do get into that role, expand it and then start thinking much more for themselves.



Except that alignment and morality systems almost never do this.

The better way to do this is to have a series of questions that the player answers about their character's past and motivations. For example:

1) Where were you born? What was you childhood like? Do you have an siblings?

2) Who was your best friend while you were a child?

3) What was your education like? Did you go to a school? Were you apprenticed?

4) When was the first time you saw a member of another race? When was thefirst time you met an adventurer?

5) What was your own call to adventure? What event took you out of your home and thrust you into the role of an adventurer?

6) Are your parents alive? If not, how did they die? If so, what do they think of your new "career"? How about your childhood friends and / or siblings?

7) How did you learn the skills you use now as an adventurer? Were you naturally talented, or did someone take you under their wing? Was your training formal, or haphazard? Some combination of all of the above?

8) What do you look like? How do you dress? Any distinguishing marks or mannerisms?

9) How did you meet the other members of your party? What do you like most about each one? What do you like the least?

10) Where do you see yourself in ten years? How do you expect your adventuring career to end?

Answering questions like these will tell alot more about a character's motivation and morality then following some arbitrary alignment track. And yes, it will be arbitrary, as it will be filtered through the moral lens of the person who creates it.
one of 4es greatest triumphs was getting rid of the old clunky alignment system. soon to be returning in 5e
If you want a bad morality system, just import an alignment system from an older edition of D&D. If you want something that guides new players, just use the 4e system (they read descriptions of the alignment, choose an alignment, and RP that alignment, but they don't get hamstrung if they stray from that definition).
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
The character motivation rules in DMG2 can be used to penalize a character who says they are all ways honorable and then lie and cheat on a whim for any little profit.

The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
it would help new roleplayers find their role(which my friends currently are :P), and then when they do get into that role, expand it and then start thinking much more for themselves.



Except that alignment and morality systems almost never do this.

The better way to do this is to have a series of questions that the player answers about their character's past and motivations. For example:

1) Where were you born? What was you childhood like? Do you have an siblings?

2) Who was your best friend while you were a child?

3) What was your education like? Did you go to a school? Were you apprenticed?

4) When was the first time you saw a member of another race? When was thefirst time you met an adventurer?

5) What was your own call to adventure? What event took you out of your home and thrust you into the role of an adventurer?

6) Are your parents alive? If not, how did they die? If so, what do they think of your new "career"? How about your childhood friends and / or siblings?

7) How did you learn the skills you use now as an adventurer? Were you naturally talented, or did someone take you under their wing? Was your training formal, or haphazard? Some combination of all of the above?

8) What do you look like? How do you dress? Any distinguishing marks or mannerisms?

9) How did you meet the other members of your party? What do you like most about each one? What do you like the least?

10) Where do you see yourself in ten years? How do you expect your adventuring career to end?

Answering questions like these will tell alot more about a character's motivation and morality then following some arbitrary alignment track. And yes, it will be arbitrary, as it will be filtered through the moral lens of the person who creates it.





Yes, I've thought about doing a little something similar, and this is basically a good idea. When me and my friends start playing again, i'll whip this out and see if their interested. Thank you.

And for the allignment system for the orignals, I actually kinda liked them, they weren't great, but hey, we all have diffrent taste.

Personally (on an other note) I think ad&d is far superior from the newer ones and I don't know what to expect from 5e, haven't read so much about it. But I do still like 4e, it's different, and it's easier for my friends to get in to. 3e and 3.5 I think is decent. 

Going off topic here but what are your opinions about the d&d editions and which is your favorite? (I just like stating my mind, and I am interested in what you guys think). Maybe I shouldn't ask this on this thread...

That's pretty off-topic for this forum.  That can be asked in Other RPG Discussion, or there are plenty of alignment threads in the D&D Next forums to choose from.
The character motivation rules in DMG2 can be used to penalize a character who says they are all ways honorable and then lie and cheat on a whim for any little profit.


But wouldn't a character who lies about being honorable just be being consistent?
The character motivation rules in DMG2 can be used to penalize a character who says they are all ways honorable and then lie and cheat on a whim for any little profit.


But wouldn't a character who lies about being honorable just be being consistent?



Not really specifically.  What it is is a condition placed on a character going against their character motivation.  The concept is that a character striving at odds between what they feel they should do and what they are currently doing creates a distraction (the name of the condition, in fact), and unless the player changes their motivation or relaligns to their motivation, they are distracted, which gives one or many or all of the following: Grant CA, -2 saving throws, can't regain action points, -1 to max healing surges even after resting.  The concept being that a fair amount of their energy is going into trying to be something they're not, and it's getting the better of them.  This is a totally optional rule.  It's also mentioned that a player constantly changing their motivation to avoid becoming distracted might actually have the motivation of either having no motivation (thus, if they settle on a motivation for too long, they then would become distracted) or be an opportunist (and thus not being a shifty, grabby person would make them distracted).  Basically, even if the player is trying to weasle out of the possible condition, it means something for the character that could then trap them in that condition they're trying to weasle out of. ;)

Again, because this is optional, it's not expected to be used in groups that don't like it.  Kind of like alignment mechanics should be posited (sorry, couldn't resist).
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
The concept is that a character striving at odds between what they feel they should do and what they are currently doing creates a distraction


There's nothing in the example about the character feeling that he should be honorable. Just that he says that he's honorable, while he actually isn't. That's perfectly in line with a character that is dishonorable.
Sanity, Honor, Dark Side Points...

Really, I found the best way to reward behavior (good or bad) was through role-playing.

Sure, the king will hire you, but he will have someone ready to stab you in the back when you return because of what you did to the last employer--killing him, his family, his heirs, and trying to claim his property by right of conquest/theft, then killing the guards sent to arrest you, and looting the guy's vault... In fact, the mission he's sending you on is a distraction in the first place--he expects you to get killed, but take out a lot of his rival's resources.

Remember that time you killed the three pilgrims at the roadside shrine for pocket change? Well, there's 2 avengers and a paladin who would like a word with you about that. Oh, and 2 archons just showed up as well...

That bar maid you assaulted for juvenile pleasure? She poisoned your drinks. Make saves. No, ok, you're paralyzed. Don't fail the next one. Oh, well, the books are over there. Maybe your next character shouldn't be such an .

Going through the scales of war series of adventures. There are 3 or 4 mods in a row that seem to assume that the characters are utterly mercenary scum that have treated everyone badly, because all the NPCs (even the guy you save from a burning house) is one step away from acusing you of theft and murder, and you have to run skill challenges to persuade them of something that is in their own best interest.