At best, alignments are unimportant, because a character should be defined by his character, not his alignment. Write the letters on your sheet if it helps you sleep at night; I am comfortable leaving that particular field blank. It has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on my character.
At worst, alignments are a catalyst for arguments about each player's interpretation about what they mean. This becomes especially bad when you tie in-game mechanics to alignment, because differences of opinion can lead to hot arguments that drag the game down into moral debates.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
If you want to refer to the 9 alignment system in your 4E game, go right ahead. I do. If you don't like that they classify demons and devils by appearance, don't do that in your game. There's no real difference between them in mine. If you want the cosmology of the planes to be based upon the Great Wheel, go for it. What's stopping you? If you want your Eladrin to be celestial beings from the plane of Arborea, rather than "high elves" with connections to the Feywild, that's certainly something you can do.
All of those things are within your reach. There's nothing you don't like that can't be changed.
Don't blame the developers for your inability to think outside the box.
Alignment doesn't matter. It has no mechanical effects. You can write down LN, LE, CG, OK, MO, Pasta Salad whatever you want. I don't even use it at all in my games. You play a character, not an alignment.
So what you are saying you don't actually play D&D, but something D&Dish. We are talking about D&D here right?
I run my D&D game with no alignment-related house rules, and I've straight up told my players that I will never ask for their character's alignment. One of them actually has "chaotic bored" written on his character sheet.
Alignment simply isn't vital to my campaign world, so I'm glad I don't have to heavily house-rule some of the core game systems to make it so mechanically, like I had to do in 3.5E.
Alignment would make a fine subsystem in the modular design idea. Tuck it away in a sourcebook with vancian spellcasting so that I can just avoid that book altogether.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
Alignment is literally the worst thing that has ever been in D&D. Nothing else has inhibited roleplaying so much. I can't think of a single positive thing about it.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Some posters feel that an alignment system is important to them, and other don't care for it. But that is the case for many aspects of D&D, from encumberance to spell components to a zillion other things.
The 4E alignment system is not very good. From what I've seen, people who actually care about alignment systems liked the 9 alignment system and really didn't like the 4E approach. .
The 9 alignment system is iconic D&D stuff, and it would be really nice to see the next generation of D&D return to this fundamental aspect of the game.
From what I've seen, people who actually care about alignment systems liked the 9 alignment system and really didn't like the 4E approach.
But, at least according to the polls, a lot MORE people like alignment just fine the way it is in 4E.
This poll indicates that more than 3 times as many people want alignments to be non-mechanical, and that's not even counting my vote, which wasn't included in the tally, for some reason.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
The 4E alignment system is not very good. From what I've seen, people who actually care about alignment systems liked the 9 alignment system and really didn't like the 4E approach.
People didn't like the 4E alignment system because people are afraid of change. The 4E alignment system was superior because it had zero effects on the game's mechanics and could effectively be ignored entirely, so it didn't inhibit roleplaying as much. If anything the only problem 4E alignment system was that it still existed when it had no reason to at all.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Some posters feel that an alignment system is important to them, and other don't care for it. But that is the case for many aspects of D&D, from encumberance to spell components to a zillion other things.
The 4E alignment system is not very good. From what I've seen, people who actually care about alignment systems liked the 9 alignment system and really didn't like the 4E approach. .
The 9 alignment system is iconic D&D stuff, and it would be really nice to see the next generation of D&D return to this fundamental aspect of the game.
If something is iconic because it's terrible, it needs to be removed.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The 9 Alignment system was, in my opinion, a nice starting point for roleplaying, but it got in the way more often than it helped. I like it as a concept, but I hate that it played such a huge role in the game from a crunch standpoint: why can't a barbarian, son of the clan chieftain, who strictly adheres to the belief system and traditions of his people, be lawful?; why can't a monk, who disagrees with the way a ruler treats his people, and organizes a peasant revolt (training them to use their bodies as weapons, since they aren't allowed to carry steel) be chaotic, or even neutral good?
Excellent points. I completely agree with your interpretations of those classes. Your examples are viable and should all be permitted. Indeed, any class should be able to choose any alignment. But I still think keeping some in-game alignment mechanics is important precisely so that they are not entirely a role-playing guide. I'm talking about spells that recognize alignment types and effects that key off of your alignment. There should be consequences for making an alignment choice, which I'm sure will nettle 4th edition players who are not used to having them any more.
It's funny, but in a broader sense, I think you can link making an alignment choice to how much people like or dislike being held accountable for their actions.
A certain number of people in this world (I won't conjecture on the percentage) really don't like being brought to task for the choices they make. In D&D of old, alignment could do that with DM judgement or alignment mechanics (spells and bane weapons).
These players mistakenly believe that the alignment system can't service them. True Neutral is right there. Call it Unaligned if you like, they largely serve the same purpose. If that is too galling, then consider Chaotic Neutral and spontaneously do whatever they heck you want.
Here's an idea. Perhaps alignment choices should come with an incentive system.
You don't want an alignment? No problem. You don't have one. Call it whatever you like. But if you choose one of the nine alignments, then perhaps you can receive some small mechanical benefit. It means you are now recognizable with detection spells, protection spells, and subject to bane weapons, but you made a choice. You can change your mind later, but as of right now, good for you. Making any choice is better than making no choice.
What sort of mechanical benefit? That could be anything, but nothing huge. Perhaps you gain class access to an alignment-themed skill or a bonus to an alignment-themed skill. That's not necessarily the idea to run with, but I think the scale is right.
Alignment doesn't matter. It has no mechanical effects. You can write down LN, LE, CG, OK, MO, Pasta Salad whatever you want. I don't even use it at all in my games.
Yeah, and whether my character has red or black hair doesn't matter mechanically either... or whether he speaks with an accent, or has a dog named 'Lumpy'.
I hate to break it you, but D&D is a ROLE-playing game. It's truly sad that I have to keep repeating that on this forum, of all places. Just because something doesn't have a direct mathematical effect doesn't mean it can't be part of the game. In fact, the nuances of character personalities are an integral part of the role-playing experience for every adult D&D player I have ever known. Playing a character is 90% of the fun, while the competitive, power-gaming, min/maxing, and dice-rolling stuff is only 10% (more or less).
I mean come on, are you serious? It has "no mechanical effects"... sheesh. I honestly can't believe you even typed that.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out in another post, drifting from one's alignment can indeed have in-game effects, just as it has for decades in D&D (e.g. angering your spell-granting deity by moving away from his/her preferred alignment(s)). Just because a small minority of players don't like alignment for whatever reason, does that mean that it should be taken away from all the rest of us that have always enjoyed having the elegant nine-alignment system? It's that very scorched-earth attitude that caused 4E to be such a miserable failure in the first place.
The 9 Alignment system was, in my opinion, a nice starting point for roleplaying, but it got in the way more often than it helped. I like it as a concept, but I hate that it played such a huge role in the game from a crunch standpoint: why can't a barbarian, son of the clan chieftain, who strictly adheres to the belief system and traditions of his people, be lawful?; why can't a monk, who disagrees with the way a ruler treats his people, and organizes a peasant revolt (training them to use their bodies as weapons, since they aren't allowed to carry steel) be chaotic, or even neutral good?
The fact that they expect paladins to be lawful good in all of their actions, all of the time, is comedic. I get where they're going with it (they're supposed to be held to higher standards, after all, and stand apart as shining examples), but it's ridiculous. I played a paladin once who fell in love with a local barmaid, and saw a man attack and attempt to sexually assault her in an alleyway. My character flew into a rage, and ended up beating the thug into a bloody pulp. He was a paladin of Ilmater, and the Forgotten Realms book actually describes Ilmater as a diety who is slow to anger, but whose wrath is truly terrifying to behold when it's finally unleashed. I felt like it was totally in-character ... my DM did not. And it was a huge point of contention.
Obviously your DM isn't too bright. Alignment is for the most part a long-term thing, and it can't be completely changed overnight by a rare act of passion. After all, the characters are mortal beings, and mortals make mistakes. Sure, if your Paladin started murdering people in cold blood, then he would be in for some damning repercussions, but something such as you describe would warrant only a stern caution and some repentance, not a punishment that would irrevocably end his character path as a Paladin of Ilmater. It's just common sense.
And I agree with you about things like the Barbarian being able to be whatever alignment suits his personality. As a DM, I see no problem with those kinds of things whatsoever.
Your post also highlights another issue, and that is when players mistakenly blame a tried-and-true core part of the game simply because they had one or two bad DMs. Blame the DM, don't blame the game. Why? Because the DM's very job as defined in the books is to fit the game to the needs of his gaming table. If you don't think that your DM is doing a good job in that regard, then get a different DM. It's as simple as that.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
