D&D 4E Would you have alignment in 4e?

[I'm A Banana]

Absolutely. Used deftly, alignment is a wonderful utensil for adding deapth and shades of gray to the world. Used like it was in Planescape, it was everything you could want from a moral system and then some. Used as energies flowing through the universe, it's an absolute benefit and one of the greatest ways to engage a feeling.

However, it is VERY easy to mis-use alignment. To use it as a straightjacket. To over-simplify things because of it. To feel that the prohibition is bad.

Which is why it should exist, but there should be a LOT of discussion on how to do it well. And I wouldn't have any problem with it being an optional rule, I think. I do think a lot of people don't like alignment for the wrong reasons, but it's kind of understandable what with the loaded terms it uses.

(Quite frankly, if there is no game mechanical reason for alignment to exist, then it should be gone).

I disagree. The reason for alignment is that it makes the game better, not just because there's power in it for your character. It makes the game better by making it more of a role-playing experience, and less of a hyper-complex game of chess. It could still be a playing a role without alignment, but alignment ensures that there IS a role to be played.

 

[Arnwyn]

I would like alignment to stay.

It gives me a nice little two-letter summary to describe an NPCs world view.

 

[gamecat]

I like alignment. Alignment is a phrase you put on your character sheet to describe the character in short. For the longhand explanation, that's on the player.

 

[lukelightning]

I like alignment as a guide to roleplaying. For example, a DM gets a book on monsters and chooses to put a monkeygoose* in the dungeon he's making. "Ah, I see this monster is Chaotic Neutral...I guess it is not particularly cruel or kill-crazy, but won't respect other creature's territories...." etc.

*a monster made by the same mad wizard responsible for owlbears.

 

[Teflon Billy]

No, except as an optional rule.

That's my wish as well

Plenty of campaigns aren't based on the struggle about good vs evil, however. Sure the PCs are heroes, but sometimes they're more interested in victory for an ideal, nation, their own pocketbook, etc than in the struggle of good vs evil.

Yup. The endless stream of EN world threads on the subject of alignment have shown me that it is largely a useless construct. It has no mechanical value and its RP value is so vague that it is little more than shorthand for a very complex series of concepts.

and the shorthand doesn't work.

Alignment has always seemed like an effort to make games ethically and morally simple ("Good is good becasue, well, it's good!...killin orc babies? Also good! because, well, they are evil! Detect evil says so!")...I don't like my games to be built that way, and no one I've gamed with for the last 15 years or so seems to like it either.

Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but enough of it that I am convinced.

 

[William Ronald]

I voted yes, but somewhat reluctantly. I think that alignment is meant to be a descriptor of character and NPC motivation. I think that something should exist for this. However, I sometimes feel that the current system is perhaps too simplistic. Perhaps something like D20 Modern's allegiances might work better with a numeric value and migh well have multiple descriptors.(This might work best for NPCs). That said, I have seen games that work well without alignment such as Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Possibly a good descriptor of a priest of Moradin might be along the lines of Lawful Good (7,9) with an additional descriptor for allegiances: Deity, Ethics, Dwarves. This would describe a character who is very good, less lawful than good, and who is devoted to his god, his ethics second, and thirdly to his people. This character could still come into conflict in some matters with a similar character who differs along one of these lines. (For example, this sample priest might be perturbed about someone who had dwarves ahead of ethics as a value, who proclaimed that he did not particularly care if a tribe of orcs was besieging a nearby elven village.) I admit this is a rough, spur of the moment example, but I think we need some descriptors of character motivation.

Alignment should not be a straitjacket for the behavior of player characters. Rather, it can be a summary of how a person acts -- not something that forces characters to act in a certain manner. Player characters will likely prove to be less than perfect by any standard, because human beings are less than perfect.

As for the mechanics, perhaps mortal races could be a little more ambiguous. So, perhaps detect evil always works on a priest of an evil god, but that you can generally only detect evil on someone actively plotting to harm someone or otherwise commit a truly evil act. (Thus, if someone is at the time actively thinking of how to murder his neighbor, this person may be a reasonable person to detect as evil. If the same person is thinking of how good dinner is, then that can be another matter. Exceptions to this would include those receiving power from evil deities, or have a pact with a fiend or plotting to cause truly great harm -- such as opening a gate to the Abyss. ) This may lead to less use of detect evil, but it might cause others to focus more on skills like Sense Motive or spells like Detect Thoughts. So, a person who may just be a worshipper of an evil deity and not someone who receives spells may not necessarily detect as evil. Also, I think the child sacrificing level 1 cleric should detect as more evil than a greedy 20th level rogue who just does not care that his theft of the army payroll will truly hurt people.

This is a bit long, but I am saying that we should have at least some means of describing PC, NPC, and monster motivation. I have seen people play complex good characters, and seen evil NPCs with a few soft spots. I think if we have an alignment system, it should be able to better represent the complexity of human behavior than the current system. (WotC already has the honor and reputation rules in Unearthed Arcana. So, there may be an examination of the traditional approach to alignment.)

 

[Rev. Jesse]

Keep alignment. Why?

1.) It is a useful role playing tool. Bear in mind that D&D is the entry level RPG. Lots of people come straight in off the straight into a D&D game w/ no other RPG experience. Alignment in the D&D vein offers an easy to understand code of conduct for various archetypes. The people that post at enworld, I imagine, are generally more experienced than your newbie. The newbie might very well need some structure on how to act within the D&D roles, especially considering how many folks get involved in their early adolescence.
2.) It is a sacred cow. As other folks said, alignment has been with us since the beginning. At this point, the opponents of the alignment system need to demonstrate how it makes the D&D system weaker rather than have its proponents justify its existence. I don’t believe there has been a mechanical justification for killing alignment in this thread. But see my next point for how I am looking at alignment.
3.) (I’m surprised no one else has mentioned this) D& D purposes a Manichaean universe, one in which Evil is a tangible thing to be fought and opposed. The alignment system, the DM / Player structure, the core classes, the character creation system, and the customization system (feats, etc) all favor generating fantastic heroes that are above mere men and these great legends need powerful, vile foes to fight. What’s more heroic than opposing Evil incarnated in the flesh?
4.) It’s not going away anyway. Everyone here knows WotC/Hasboro will have alignment in 4E.

 

[diaglo]

Keep alignment.

Run, Jesse, Run.

always wanted to say that.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I voted yes. The people who use it would miss it and complain.

The people who don't use it would just accept that it is still part of the rules.

I would like to see them clarified a little better in 4e (since we all know they'll be there).

 

[NimrodvanHall]

Alignment should stay in the game as was pointed out alot in this thread its one of the things that make D&D D&D, i do think it should be tied less to the mechanics of the game, right now in 3.x good/evil is like gravity, a law of nature, it should be more ethical, interacting only with other things due to divination spells, not with things as ChaosHammer/ holyword/ anarchic weapon. It shoudl be kept for outsiders, since they are fsouls given form. for humans etc your alighnment should not be so tangible as it is now.