Batman wants to burn down a brothel in the game. What happens to his alignment if the DM is using alignment properly?
I'm pretty sure I read that issue, and I'm pretty sure something awesome resulted from it. And that's all a DM has to do, for alignment or anything else: find the awesome. It might take talking to the players to figure out what possible awesome there is, but it's almost certainly in there. If it's not, everyone's wasting everyone else's time and should go do something else, probably with other people.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Instead of arguing the "nature" of alignment or it's necessity, discussing how to properly use it in game and how not to use it seems to me the fruitful discussion for DM's and Players combined.
How a pc defines his/her alignment is not important to the "game". It's only important to the player. How the world around the pc, defines the pc's alignment is the crux. The world is represented by the DM. Then how the DM defines the players alignment based on his/her continued beliefs, actions & intentions through out the games, defines the players alignment...when alignment matters. The player can believe whatever he/she wants to believe and behave how ever he/she wants to behave regardless what alignment he/she believes he/she is. That's not important. It's how the world around the pc perceives the pc's alignment that really is the crux when it comes to "alignments".
I accept the paragraph above as a very good thing. It's what I do.
When players make their characters, if they want to have an alignment they can pick it, otherwise they don't, I don't care whether they do or don't.
I, as the DM (and as the "world around the PC"), then base what I believe their alignment is upon what they do or don't do. I'm the metaphoric St Peter keeping the books for Judgment Day, so to speak. I don't consult with my players as to what is Right or Wrong — nobody knows the Universal Truths anyway, without consulting directly with the divine, why would my players' characters? As mortals in the Real World, we each have our own opinions — based on experience, or learning, or instinct, or whatever each individual draws upon. Same with the characters. Their characters might think they are fodoing Good but are actually doing Evil; or vice versa. Why in the world should they be priviledged enough to see the balance sheet before they needed to?
Now, if they had a direct talk with a deity who was honest with them about it? I'd probably tell them. If they asked what their culture thought? I'd tell them that (though actually, now, I'd probaby be more likely to ask them what they think their culture thinks). Otherwise, its for them to think one way and me to think another. Maybe they're right about some things, maybe they're wrong. They won't know unless/until it actually matters — which it probably won't, but you never know.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Instead of arguing the "nature" of alignment or it's necessity, discussing how to properly use it in game and how not to use it seems to me the fruitful discussion for DM's and Players combined.
How a pc defines his/her alignment is not important to the "game". It's only important to the player. How the world around the pc, defines the pc's alignment is the crux. The world is represented by the DM. Then how the DM defines the players alignment based on his/her continued beliefs, actions & intentions through out the games, defines the players alignment...when alignment matters. The player can believe whatever he/she wants to believe and behave how ever he/she wants to behave regardless what alignment he/she believes he/she is. That's not important. It's how the world around the pc perceives the pc's alignment that really is the crux when it comes to "alignments".
I accept the paragraph above as a very good thing. It's what I do.
When players make their characters, if they want to have an alignment they can pick it, otherwise they don't, I don't care whether they do or don't.
I, as the DM (and as the "world around the PC"), then base what I believe their alignment is upon what they do or don't do. I'm the metaphoric St Peter keeping the books for Judgment Day, so to speak. I don't consult with my players as to what is Right or Wrong — nobody knows the Universal Truths anyway, without consulting directly with the divine, why would my players' characters? As mortals in the Real World, we each have our own opinions — based on experience, or learning, or instinct, or whatever each individual draws upon. Same with the characters. Their characters might think they are fodoing Good but are actually doing Evil; or vice versa. Why in the world should they be priviledged enough to see the balance sheet before they needed to?
Now, if they had a direct talk with a deity who was honest with them about it? I'd probably tell them. If they asked what their culture thought? I'd tell them that (though actually, now, I'd probaby be more likely to ask them what they think their culture thinks). Otherwise, its for them to think one way and me to think another. Maybe they're right about some things, maybe they're wrong. They won't know unless/until it actually matters — which it probably won't, but you never know.
This is what I am talking about. Absolutely correct. Now to use this to answer Yokel's questions about batman & burnt brothel. Batman may think he is lawful good whatever. In Yagami's world setting as the DM, he will define Batman to be Lawful good, so in his world, everyone may interact with the Batman in such a way. In Yokel's world setting as the DM, he may define that to be evil, and in Yokel's world setting, everyone may interact with Baman in such a way. Neither is wrong. What can't be argued is whoever is playing the "batman", how he/she should feel about his/her charactor, the batman's alignment. He/she can decide it to be anything, & it don't matter. Only matters to the player, not to the World Setting.
What alignment the player chooses & how the player behaves is in the Players Realm. How the world around the pc interacts with the player regarding players behavior & beliefs is in the DM's Realm.
These two realm shouldn't at all clash. When the DM starts to mess around with the Players Realm, and vice versa, then you got arguments.
What alignment the player chooses & how the player behaves is in the Players Realm. How the world around the pc interacts with the player regarding players behavior & beliefs is in the DM's Realm.
These two realm shouldn't at all clash. When it does, then you got arguments.
I will agree to the above with one exception: Saul of Tarsus, George Bailey, and similar tropes of that sort.
There may be some reason — the player actually wants it, or the character happens to have an audience with some deity where it comes up — that some sort of "seeing the light" sort of thing occurs. Maybe it's someone who thought he was doing Good and discovers he wasn't (Saul of Tarsus). Or maybe it's someone who thought he'd been doing Bad, and discovering all the Good he's done (George Bailey). Or maybe its simply an affirmation that they're on the course the want to be on (couldn't think of any off the top of my head).
This sort of Revelation, in my mind, would be the only valid time for a character — or a player, for that matter — to "know" that line. (Though I'll also note that each individual deity might have different points of view on the subject; what Avandra thinks is Good and what Bane thinks is Good are too different things.) Otherwise, not their concern what I think.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
DM shouldn't force players to play according to whatever player alignment he/she chose. That's players realm.
Players shouldn't argue with the DM why the DM's world (including the panteon) is responding to them in a way that may be contrary to what they think the world & pantheon should respond because of their "choice" of alignment... That's DM's realm.
Isn't that where the argument come from though? Player think one thing, DM think another? NPCs start to act like my PC is evil when I don't think I did anything evil?
Isn't that where the argument come from though? Player think one thing, DM think another? NPCs start to act like my PC is evil when I don't think I did anything evil?
But it is the DM's world setting. Just as the DM shouldn't tell a player how to play the PC. Player really shouldn't tell the DM how to play their NPC. If the player wants the DM to change how the npc responds to them.. then equally the DM can tell the player how the player should respond with the world. Both is bad.
This is true in RL as well. A person may think he/she should be luved by everyone because he/she thinks he/she is "perfect" to them. But reality is everyone may not luv the person, because everyone else don't think he/she is "perfect"...matter of factly they may feel he/she is narcisstic.
There shouldn't be any conflict when Players and DM's don't try intervene into each other's Realm.
What alignment the player chooses & how the player behaves is in the Players Realm. How the world around the pc interacts with the player regarding players behavior & beliefs is in the DM's Realm.
These two realm shouldn't at all clash. When it does, then you got arguments.
I will agree to the above with one exception: Saul of Tarsus, George Bailey, and similar tropes of that sort.
There may be some reason — the player actually wants it, or the character happens to have an audience with some deity where it comes up — that some sort of "seeing the light" sort of thing occurs. Maybe it's someone who thought he was doing Good and discovers he wasn't (Saul of Tarsus). Or maybe it's someone who thought he'd been doing Bad, and discovering all the Good he's done (George Bailey). Or maybe its simply an affirmation that they're on the course the want to be on (couldn't think of any off the top of my head).
This sort of Revelation, in my mind, would be the only valid time for a character — or a player, for that matter — to "know" that line. (Though I'll also note that each individual deity might have different points of view on the subject; what Avandra thinks is Good and what Bane thinks is Good are too different things.) Otherwise, not their concern what I think.
Absolutely. So the DM controls the deity. Diety is the npc. The DM can determine how this npc responds to the pc based on DM's interpretation of PC's actions, intentions throughout the game/s in his world setting, compared to the deity's charactor and portfolio and respond accordingly. How the PC responds to the deity, is totally up to the pc. The pc can fling a middle finger and tell the diety to shove it... or decide to kiss up to get what the pc wants.
Another How Not to: Players should'n't use alignment to demand certain rights or response from npc's based on his/her definition of his actions. I mean... we can't do that in RL. When do we ever go into a store and tell the clerk, I am such a good person, I help the poor alot, do all these good things make all these sacrifices (this can be totally true).... I demand you respect me and show me favors, and let me have this ham sandwich. Do we get mad when clerk denies us?
I don't think that everyone who is against alignment has had problems implementing it, nor have they necessarily had bad experiences. I personally have found that I just don't want alignment hard-coded into certain rules because in previous editions (not 4e, obviously) it precluded many fantasy archetypes that I feel should have been perfectly viable. It is also an attempt to make absolutes out of concepts that have potential grey areas, and those grey areas make it hard not to end up coloring them with one's personal interpretation of "is this good or evil?" There are some parts of alignment that can be objective, but there are equal numbers of subjective points that can result in problems when dealing with older editions' rules that effectively allow the DM to say that a player is suddenly deprived of class powers, ability to level up in their chosen class, or their ability to use certain spells, magic items, etc.
This is the aspect that makes many people say "This rule system inhibits my/my players' freedom to create interesting, organic characters, or inhibits players from doing what they truly want to do/what's according to the PC's personality, because they don't want to risk their powers."
Also, even the OP's statement that alignment might be the result of D&D's pantheons tied to their settings doesn't really hold water in my view; although there are alignments tied to the deities, there is also a strong description of the deities' behavior and nature that can often do more to interpret how a PC should express themselves as a follower of that deity, or what makes up the worship of that deity. It is, as I pointed out, a far more organic character development to focus on how the player interprets the description of the deity's beliefs and nature rather than simply "this god is good, this goddess is evil." That's only a very tiny aspect of the deity's being. In 3.x Ed., I honestly felt that even their chosen weapon could help define more about the deity than their alignment ever did.
In 4e, there are full descriptions of the various deities' tenets of the faith, which basically says that this is what a worshipper of this deity does to express their faith. Doing things counter to these tenets--particularly on a repeat basis--is likely to result in you being viewed as a heretic, and get the church turned against you. Easily handled, without needing to drag alignment into the picture. It's not a matter of an "evil" action turning a "good" deity's church against you. As an example: "you became an oppressive tyrant who crushes the freedom of others, so the church of Avandra has excommunicated you and wants you dealt with in some fashion for abusing power they once gifted you with in the name of their goddess and her faith."
Also, to the OP...I think you do not understand the meaning of "homebrewed world," based upon the context of how you use it.A homebrewed world is simply any setting that the DM (often with input from their players) has created for their players to interact with as opposed to a published setting (Forgotten Realms, Ebberon, Dark Sun). It is still a D&D world, because it uses the D&D rules system to implement actual play. If we were to use your definition (a world with no interactions with a pantheon of deities or their followers) then by that statement, Dark Sun wouldn't be D&D. You are perhaps thinking of a homebrewed system, which may build off the baseline of D&D, but in the end is nothing like its starting base. There have been homebrew worlds created by D&D players for ages that have no/low magic, or no divine classes/deities, or do not allow certain races, or completely rewrite class or race descriptions until nothing remains but their stats/abilities, and yet they are still D&D worlds. It's just that they are singular to each individual gaming group.
I will agree that alignment only matters in how the world around the PC views it. The issue is, the world is defined by the DM, and as the DM is only human, they can't help but have at least some of their own lens defining how they view the smaller, more mutable aspects of good and evil. Thus, as opponents of alignment will argue, they may pick up on small things that the player does not, and inform the player that they are not meeting up to the DM's interpretation of their alignment. This was potentially a much more severe issue in previous editions, naturally, because this could suddenly render a PC of a certain class entirely powerless, or make them lose a level, or be unable to level, etc.
It is not truly an issue of the player not being able to play the character as they want, although as some have pointed out, it could indeed result in players who refused to act as they'd described their PC's mannerisms might lead them to out of fear that it would result in their alignment being changed as a result. It is an issue of the DM having the power to strip a PC's power due to their interpretation of good and evil trumping the players'. The idea that "players and DMs shouldn't try to intervene in each other's Realms" is problematic, because if the players don't have some say into how things like good and evil in the DM's setting are interpreted, then they don't know what actions could potentially devastate their PC.
