Community

4e alignment is a Legacy from Edition's past which still needs to stop taking it's last breaths, hurry up and die.

The alignment sections "great perks" for new gamers, as it's proponents so call them, are just as easily satisfied by a more in depth explanation of what roleplaying is, and infact Alignment was used so that they could "save space" rather than actually give helpful advice to new gamers.

If you open almost any other modern successful RPG, you'll find a significantly more detailed Roleplaying section, which if you follow and answer the little snippets generally you find where your character stands on the moral compass quite easily, as well as your character's specific personality traits.

The reason it's easier for new to rpg games gamers to make new, characters that have depth is because frankly the other systems take the time to explain what Rping is as well as what makes a character a character. D&D needs to stop being lazy and using Alignment as a lame rp tool that doesn't even do it's job very well and hire a guy to just write up one or two pages explaining what Rping is, and what Character goals and motivations are properly.

This is also, partly where imo there is the Culture difference from D&Ders to not D&Ders. D&Ders have quite often very little experience making deep characters, compared to their not D&Ders counterparts. And I think honestly that has alot to do with Alignment's existence and the lack of -good- explanations about Roleplaying and Character motivations.

4e made great progress with Alignment, it went from being a Flaw with the System and the Rules themselves, to just being a Flaw of the book the system is printed in.

And someone can say "but I liked old alignment mechanics!" yes and there are people out there that still prefer carbeurators to fuel injection. That does not however mean that carbs are in anyway shape or form mechanically superior, or even equal.

Scypio: too bad alignment never functioned that way. Alignment was a punishing tool when it was mechanically present. "oh you are good? ahahahha +2d6 against your face!" Etc.

However the only "perk" you got for being good was not being punished by holy etc.

Alignment was used frankly as a punishment and not a rewards tool. Nor was it used in any fashion as a true power suite.

The thing about what you propose, with Fighter A and B is that alignment didn't actually do any of those things. All it determined was what kind of gear they could use. Or what kind of spells raped their faces even better than they would have normally.

And given alignment's incredibly subjective manner, which varies world to world, it should -never- have been incoporated into a Universal book. Especially when what's fine in one world bones you in the next. Alignment was bad for a number of reasons, one of them being it effectively made people playing different campaigns potentially playing by different games all together.

Alignment over the course of it's existence has done nothing useful for the hobby as a whole, except divide the community, not just between "I ditched alignment" but between even people that use Alignment because Alignment frankly is so vague that it has no context and is open to an incredibly stupidly diverse range of interpretations, which is extremely poor design when those interpretations can destroy a character in .02 seconds.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:17AM, williamhm75 wrote:

Why do you need Mechanics to punish people for role playing choices?  Can't you just use RP to do that?  Why should spells effect someone differently based on moral out look?  Such things are so grey that it should be nigh impossible to tell.

The idea of using planar resonances to more selectively target/affect something is a concept I find appealing personally, so I liked those old alignment structures.  Its a matter of preference really, and the upsides and downsides more depended on who was doing the interpretation than on some objective flaw or strength.  The current alignment system could be just as abused if a DM were of a mind to punish players, as could any other system... the older stuff was almost certainly easier to justify, but the issue wasn't the rules or systems, it was the petty and punitive DMs out there acting like adversarial pricks.  At least from the perspective I tend to look at it from.

Really, it just comes down to the notion that a guy of a mind to punish you is going to find a way to do it, and the only thing stuff like this is going to change is the method, not the act.

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:14AM, Cpt_Micha wrote:

Scypio: too bad alignment never functioned that way. Alignment was a punishing tool when it was mechanically present. "oh you are good? ahahahha +2d6 against your face!" Etc.

However the only "perk" you got for being good was not being punished by holy etc.

I would argue that prestige classes were a perk of being good. Additionally, there were using certain items was a perk. I don't think that it reached its potential, but there were definate positives.

Alignment was used frankly as a punishment and not a rewards tool. Nor was it used in any fashion as a true power suite.

The thing about what you propose, with Fighter A and B is that alignment didn't actually do any of those things. All it determined was what kind of gear they could use. Or what kind of spells raped their faces even better than they would have normally.

What I proposed was what it could add to the game. Someone wanted to know what mechanical benefits could be added which would justify alignment's inclusion. So I gave an idealized image of alignment.

But I don't think it is all negative. While people think of limitations due to alignment, I imagine it as options for being certain alignments. For example, random anybody adventure has X classes to pick from. If he's alignment Y, there are Z more classes. But I know most people see a class and immediately see alignment as restricting the number of character concepts. I guess its just different ways to look at character creation.

And given alignment's incredibly subjective manner, which varies world to world, it should -never- have been incoporated into a Universal book. Especially when what's fine in one world bones you in the next. Alignment was bad for a number of reasons, one of them being it effectively made people playing different campaigns potentially playing by different games all together.

It is subjective, but so is many things (see previous posts). So you should talk with your DM and group and come to an agreement on many issues (which could include alignment).

And how is it bad that different campaigns cause the game to be different? I always thought that was part of the appeal of DnD?

Nov 3, 2009 -- 7:09AM, Scypio wrote:

Because its easier to remove material, especially when its not fundamental mechanic compared to have to create. How many people have stated that they haven't used alignment (either in 3.x or 4e)? It should be pretty easy to just ignore alignment restrictions or not use properties that key off of alignment. Its much easier to say "don't use any alignment swords" than to figure out how to balance and implement alignment mechanics.

What level of a magic armor should +2 against Evil be compared to +2 against Chaotic Evil? What level should a spell be if it grants +1d10 damage against a certain alignment? These questions would be harder than to just ignore certain weapon properties and powers.

Its the idea that we can play different games. If DnD is a box of paints, you may dislike a certain color. Would you have to have that color removed so I can't use the color which I like? Just don't use the color and let me use it.

As anyone who tried to remove alignment from 3rd Edition can state, it is not always easier to remove a system then it is to add one in.  In addition by making alginment the default rules you encourage new DMs to shoehorn alignment onto their game even if it is actively detrimental to the setting they desire.

To me, its mainly flavor and gameplay pentrating into mechanics. Its a mechanic which is based upon player actions. Fighter A and Fighter B can be effected very differently based upon not just what we chose when we level or what equipment we buy, but by the very way they behave in the game.

If you're familiar with most Star Wars video games, its like that but potentially much more complex and in depth. What "side" I'm on, based upon my actions through the game, grants me different abilities or properties.

But why should this be a concept universal to all D&D games?  Why shouldn't it be an optional rule tucked away somewhere (with actual decent rules attached to it) instead of a must have feature that doesn't fit, well, all but 2 actual D&D games I've played in.

Most systems run fine without roleplaying rules.  The only ones that require them are ones that are very setting heavy.  Why should D&D, an incredibly setting light system be using alignment as a default?