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

[Dannyalcatraz]

How does it improve the game?

A good alignment system (like D&D has always had) has 1) rules defining the moral playing field and 2) rules for what happens when the rules are violated.

What some see as "a crutch" is nevertheless a useful guideline for roleplay, and furthermore, it is a useful tool for the DM. It lays groundwork for plotlines and in-game effects. It adds flavor.

We're talking about the supernatural- it may have wonky rules, but there is still a certain cause & effect.

A Paladin loses his abilities when he violates his alignment; a deity inflicts penalties against his "faithful" who stray from his ethos.

Without an alignment system, how do you reflect the oft-described "Aura of Evil" from works of fiction and mythology. It's not an "Aura of Nausea" or "Aura of Unease" - it is a palpable sense that you are in the presence of something to which good is anathema.

 

[tetsujin28]

Would I? Absolutely not. Alignment was lame in OD&D, lame in 1 and 2e, and continues to be lame. I'd probably use something more like d20M's Allegiances, if I felt any need for a mechanic.

 

[Desdichado]

The responses I'm getting on my alignment mechanics thread are leading me to think that perhaps 4e should lose alignment altogether - people don't want it.

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

Personally, I'd hate to see alignment go. I think it's a great tool - not for restricting player actions, but for giving meaning to the game as part of a struggle between good and evil (or law and chaos).

Well, your thread title is not the same question as your poll question. "Should alignment be in D&D 4e" and "would you have alignment in 4e" are not the same thing at all. My answer to the first question is: probably. My answer to the second question is: absolutely not. I think alignment is part and parcel of what D&D is to most people, so eliminating it is probably a bad idea.

On the other hand, alignment doesn't work for me at all. I don't really use it now, even in straight-up D&D. I completely excise it from any other game I use.

 

[iwatt]

Voted yes.

Personally, I don't care much for alignment (it's lost a lot of baggage carried over from prior editions, but I don't find alignment that helpful as a roleplaying tool). But playing DnD without alignment wouldn't be DnD to me. Paladins detect evil, the alignment forces can hurt you, etc... These are things I've always linked to DnD, and I think any new edition should keep them.

 

[The Druid Merlin]

I think they need to give better explanations. Lets take Lawful Evil for example,

Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Now think about the show Blackadder, most of the villains and yes the hero, are all Lawful Evil. They either want power, or have it and abuse and manipulate power to the best of their abilities. However, they are more than willing to betray each other, the Crown, and in some cases their own countries for political power. Lets take four characters starting with the Bishop of Bath. The Bishop of Bath is a corrupt, obese, sexually perverted, womanizing, baby eating, mob boss of an Anglican Bishop with a weakness for alcohol in general. Then there's Prince Ludwig, the Indestructible. Prince Ludwig the Indestructible is criminally insane, power hungry, vengeful, methodical, paranoid, and a master of disguise. He even disguised himself as a "very friendly sheep" with which the young Lord Melchart spent a wonderful evening. Then there's Lord Edmund Blackadder II Esquire, he's greedy, intelligent, manipulative, power hungry, and frequently insults people. He derives his personal code from Machivelli. The butler Edmund Blackadder the Third is much like his ancestor Lord Blackadder, except more successful. (Well he does become the Prince Regent, in an episode to convoluted to explain.)

My take on the Evil alignments.

Chaotic Evil. Immoral anarchist. They share the love of freedom but not the respect for life, happiness, or control of one’s own person of other Chaotics. They not only want to destroy all governments, but all society.

Neutral Evil. Willful parasite. They don’t care about power or anarchy, only how much they could suck out of you before you die.

Lawful Evil. Machiavellian. They believe that any action is honorable if it is done in the name of the State. They excuse theft, rape, torture, and murder if it is done in the name of the State. They believe that those who can and will seek power have the moral right to possess it.

 

[Airwolf]

I'm going to have to say Yes. I think for the D&D game alignment adds a great deal of flavor. I can, of course, see the desire not to have it. Alignments can be a real pain some times.

I'm sure that anyone who doesn't want to play with alignments could design some methods for removing it without screwing up the game at all.

 

[Driddle]

No alignment.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

For Alignment.

It is one of those things that sets D&D apart from other FRPGs. You can easly run a game with moral absolutes instead of moral relativism that is so prevalent in just about everything else. A Paladin can be a shining beacon of light and truth, absolute to the world in a game with alignments. That is one of the things I love about the game (and one of the reasons I hated planescape, all of the factions and relativism).

 

[Lamoni]

When I first saw this, I quickly voted YES. What a simple question. I like choosing an alignment when I choose what type of character I'll play. "I'll be a chaotic sorcerer who never keeps their promise and is very unpredictable." or "I'll be a lawful monk who would rather kill an innocent commoner than break his word."

Anyway, then I started reading some posts and I kept being reminded of threads that commonly come up. "Is it evil to coup de grace someone?" "Does a good person have to accept surrender?" All questions that I'd rather not deal with and I am glad I don't have to deal with them in my group. Alignment should be a guide for the players, but if a player wants to coup de grace someone, let them do it without bothering to threaten an alignment change.

In conclusion I like the alignment system, but I definately wouldn't be opposed to an alternate idea... or moving it to the same section and importance of deciding your height, hair color, etc. You could reword the alignment restrictions for monk and Paladin. (always keeps their word, follows orders from superiors, never willingly kills the innocent without extenuating circumstances, etc) You could just do away with the alignment restriction on barbarian. Why can't you be lawful and sacrifice defense for offense a few times a day?

 

[drothgery]

Yes.

It's one of those things that would not be in drothgery's ideal d20-esque Fantasy RPG (along with the wizard-clerical magic split), but belongs in Dungeons & Dragons.