PDA

View Full Version : 4th ed concepts: unaligned characters!



hamishspence
2007-12-16, 03:23 PM
4th ed preview book tells us alignment will be far less central, characters can be "evil-curious" without descending into evil, very few powers will be alignment centred (Down with Protection From Evil!)

Basically, most people will be unaligned, players can Choose to align themselves, or choose to simply adventure.

Now DM's, I think, should still enforce the "you are acting REALLY evil, so you are evil" but the grey area is much wider.

It says even Good aligned guys can be surly, do things which are "not exactly good" but trying hard is what keeps them on the good alignment.

I do not say we should retroactively apply this, this is a 3.5 ed strip.

But, if we did, who might we put in the unaligned category?

Vaarsuvius is a good candidate, has a strong neutral theme.
Eugene, given his strong tendency not to stick to things, would be another possibility:
1: Dumped Xykon quest as soon as a big snag (it was Xyklon he met)
2: Refused to try when Right eye gave him loads of info. You would at least think he would rally a few buddies and scope out the area, make preparations, show effort.
3: handed quest over to roy. no "Will you come and help me complete this by shielding me from things that magic works poorly on? Just: Family honor means you do the job.

Who else? Does Unaligned make a good category for some PCs and NPCs in OOTS?

Alex Warlorn
2007-12-16, 03:34 PM
And thus another reason I grow to detest 4th Edition with each bit I learn of it.

Morty
2007-12-16, 03:39 PM
And thus another reason I grow to detest 4th Edition with each bit I learn of it.

:smallconfused: How is getting rid of stuck-up, objective moralty while still having an option to roleplay rigid moral code bad? I'd call it great compromise.
As for OP's question- I think that most of PCs and NPCs in OOTS would become "unaligned" in such system. But it depends if being evil instead of unaligned depends on the number and weight of evil acts, or the character's devotion to evilness.

Alex Warlorn
2007-12-16, 03:42 PM
Because a group, concept, or idea with no exclusion has no meaning.

And from the beginning, D&D alingments have always known what they themselves are. Demons and Devils KNOW they're Evil, and are proud of that fact. Angels and Devas KNOW they're Good, and know what goodness actually means. The Monodrones KNOW they represent the ORDER of the Lawful Neutral Alingment, while the Inevitables KNOW they represent the LAW part.

The outer alingment planes, to their own effect, are alive and sentient themselves, and the outsiders are sentient disconnections of them.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-16, 04:30 PM
Could you explain that further? There's still alignment; it's just that your average person is considered to be "Apathetic Neutral" (rather than "Druidic True Neutral"). Good and Evil still exist, it's just that performing a few Evil acts won't make you show up on the paladin's radar.

Alex Warlorn
2007-12-16, 06:25 PM
Look at Roy's interview with the deva on his alingment please.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-16, 06:31 PM
Thog is pretty much un-aligned as it is. His intelligence is borderline on whether he's actually smart enough to understand evil. He pretty much just does stuff without any form of thought.

Redcloak would end up un-aligned, pretty surely. Most of his "evil" is only evil because he does it to humans instead of goblins.

geekyhedgehog
2007-12-16, 06:34 PM
Lack of alignments=bad for all Clerics and Paladins, with less Smiting abilities, right? Because honestly, who would actually pick an alignment when they could just act it and not carry any penalties?

Palthera
2007-12-16, 06:36 PM
Could you explain that further? There's still alignment; it's just that your average person is considered to be "Apathetic Neutral" (rather than "Druidic True Neutral"). Good and Evil still exist, it's just that performing a few Evil acts won't make you show up on the paladin's radar.

But even in 3.5 a few evil acts don't make you evil. A good person is allowed to be surly, because just because they know the right thing to do and know they're going to do it, doesn't mean they have to like it. Having a moral compass does not necessarily make you a nice person.

And neutral characters always have the option of being played as swinging from good to evil like a badly balanced pendulum if they want to. Just because a rule exists does not mean it dominates every aspect of the roleplay.

Like a stupid paladin who doesn't realise that even if people don't register as "evil" to him they are capable of doing evil things, because it's not something that would enter into his head.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-16, 07:17 PM
I fail to see how this "unaligned" business is any different from being "neutral" in earlier editions, in practice. Of course they've refluffed it a bit but that's all.

Niknokitueu
2007-12-17, 04:53 AM
:smallconfused: How is getting rid of stuck-up, objective moralty while still having an option to roleplay rigid moral code bad? I'd call it great compromise.
Whilst I would call it 'giving in to players that want to have their cake and eat it'.

Who would choose to be an alignment if drifting from it could cost them a level?

You would have a flurry of paladins that think it a good idea to torch a village that is hiding a high-level bad guy. The fact that you or I may think it a great idea just means we are not 'LG'.

You would also have a flurry of back-stabbing characters "Well, I said he was greedy" being an excuse to kill party members in their sleep...

You need to act heroic in a game of heroes vs villans. Allowing unaligned characters means everyone will have a get-out clause to act un-heroically.

It is okay to have ordinary peasents as unaligned. Heroes and villans should keep alignments, if only to avoid the 'black hat' fiasco of seventies westerns...

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

ApatheticDespot
2007-12-17, 05:27 AM
Whilst I would call it 'giving in to players that want to have their cake and eat it'.

You do realize that games are supposed to be fun, right? Why on earth should players not be able to eat their cake? That`s what cake is for!

Tempest Fennac
2007-12-17, 05:33 AM
I'd agree that this concept is better due to how the current system tends to be impractical when you consider that "shades of grey" situatins are more likely to appen then black-and-white situations in real life. Also, hamishspence, you should have marked a lot of your post as being SoD spoilers.

Muyten
2007-12-17, 06:08 AM
Well to me the new alignment system sounds pretty good but then I've never been a big fan of aligment in the first place. Sure Demons and Devils know they are evil and same with other planar beings, and they will most likely stay that way in the new system, but what about humans? Humans can do a lot of evil stuff without thinking of themselves as evil and I hardly think anyone thinks of themselves as chaotic. The new alignment system seems to mostly be about shifting focus so that most character will be unaligned instead of having to conform to some alignment which only limits your roleplaying.

Paladins wont suffer much from this by the way. Since paladins no longer have to be LG (but most likely have to be aligned in some way) and their smites no longer apply only to evil beings (at least not the smites that they've disclosed thus far).

David Demola
2007-12-17, 06:29 AM
Humans can do a lot of evil stuff without thinking of themselves as evil and I hardly think anyone thinks of themselves as chaotic.

[Scrubbed] Evil is in relation to the public''s own paradigm. If a world was full of people who torture others for information, then torture wouldn't be evil; it would be normal. But, since torture IS considered as evil by the normal person, it is evil.

Chaotic persons admit to being against establishment. Look at the entire Punk movement (and no, I don't mean Avril Lavigne. I mean the REAL stuff. They admit to being everything that Chaotic is defined as being).

My point, though, is that your own view of yourself is meaningless, when it comes to alignment, since the concept of alignment is created by the world around you. You can believe you're justified for punching a 5 year old in the face, and you can believe it was a good, just act, but if the world says you're evil for punching a 5 year old in the face, then guess what? You're evil. Your personal opinion means about as much as used toilet paper, when it comes to determining your own alignment.

Muyten
2007-12-17, 07:21 AM
I agree completely. My point originaly was that I believe that in D&D alignment should be more of a universal force than a stamp put on all people.
In D&D alignment restricts your actions(unless you want to lose a level) in real life your alignment is determined by your actions. (If you do evil you are evil). I can see why such restrictions should be put on planar entities (at least to some degree) being the embodiement of evil (such as a demon) and not acting accordingly should be tough but for a human (or hobbit or goblin for that matter) such restrictions are foolish and limits roleplay.

Ancalagon
2007-12-17, 08:56 AM
The alignment-system is a very nice one. I really like it. I just have the theory: A lot of people did not really understand it and that is why the thing creates such problems. Think about RG and all the stupidity you have to hear about that (go into the Miko-threats on this forum, for example).

All shades of grey work perfectly in the old system.

Muyten
2007-12-17, 09:51 AM
I think all the Miko threads are a perfect example of why the alignment-system doesn't work in general. I don't think (and I know I'm opening an old can of worm here) that Miko ever changed alignment (she did break her codex though). I think LG is big enough to hold the shades of grey that is Miko but a lot of people don't. I think a lot of GMs would have warned Mikos player and/or given them an experience penalty(had she been a PC) for what happened, I just think it was nice RP and it seems to me that 4th edition is better able to encompass such greyness than the old system.

Preferably though I would like to completely get rid of alignment on the roleplaying level. Sure it could still be used mechanicaly as for example an indicator of what a paladin can smite and such. I just don't like it when mechanics get in the way of good roleplaying.

Ancalagon
2007-12-17, 10:20 AM
If we are starting about Miko-Threads: I think they are the proof that people in general do not work when it comes to things that are more complicated than "Me smash you on head with club! Hahaha!".
No wonder the generally-working, but requires-thought-alignment-system causes problems. :)

What I like about the system is that concepts as "chaos" and "good" are hardcoded in the world. You can base spells, even if your god likes you on it. That just rocks (and the mechanics do not interfere with good roleplaying!)
If the players actions do not meet the chars alignment, you probably should pick a better one but that is a flaw in the player (he cannot pick the alignment that suits his char), not a flaw in the system itself.

By the way: How can someone read Order of the Stick and still think the Alignment-System limites RP and Character.
Hinjo, Miko, Roy -> All Lawful Good, three totally different characters, even when it comes to "morale" and "what is good?"
Rich just clubbed all people who claim the alignment-system does not work and limits RP down with this comic. (and do not tell me you do not know OotS) ;)

jeffreyac
2007-12-17, 10:44 AM
You need to act heroic in a game of heroes vs villans.


I think this summed it up perfectly, and I privately agree with what you're trying to say. I've always preferred to run good-aligned parties through adventures, where the party tries to be motivated by benevolence (for one thing, makes it easier to provide adventure hooks!)

However, I do think there needs to be room for what I like to call the 'grey knight' types - the guys that aren't exactly good, but aren't really bad guys either. For example, I once ran a campaign for a group made up entirely of thieves (each had a different emphasis, and in some cases different styles/prestige classes). Was a lot of fun, but were they truly heroic? I'm not sure.

But I will say it was much harder to write adventures for that group than I thought it'd be. I remember I spent a bunch of time weaving an intricate plot where they were hired to unravel the mysteries behind a series of kidnappings - set a thief to catch a thief, that sort of idea. Hours spent fleshing out the world, the NPC's, detailed clues to be found, encounters chasing shadowy foes through dark alleys...

Trouble is, the players got frustrated, and decided the potential loot and gain for their characters wasn't worth the time, - so they left town, and went to find something else to do! :smallmad: Worst part was, I couldn't really argue - the way it played out, roleplaying-wise, the players were acting completely in accordance with their characters... I let them go with it, as I try to not railroad the groups in the direction I want them to go, but it resulted in a lot of make-it-up-as-you-go play!

At any rate, as long as you define your character's persona and roleplay to that persona, I have no problem with abandoning set alignments. This doesn't give you free reign to be insane and completely randomize your actions, in my mind - it just gives you more degrees to decide how your character sees the world. As long as it's consistent, it's good roleplay.

And, yes, this is completely subjective opinion. Feel free to disagree/mock at your leisure... :smallsmile:

KhaibitEmaNeteru
2007-12-17, 01:04 PM
Preferably though I would like to completely get rid of alignment on the roleplaying level. Sure it could still be used mechanicaly as for example an indicator of what a paladin can smite and such. I just don't like it when mechanics get in the way of good roleplaying.

What, exactly, do you mean by "get rid of it on a roleplaying level"?

If you mean characters shouldn't be aware of their own alignments and the alignments of others, that's problematic if you want to keep alignment as a mechanical construct. The mechanics interact with the roleplaying by necessity. If a Paladin has to choose to smite, then the knowledge that he can smite some people and not others means he will be aware of alignment. And the fact that certain characters keep getting smote will make *them* aware of their alignment. You can't really keep it in the mechanics without it getting into the roleplay.

If you mean that people shouldn't let their alignment dictate their roleplaying, then I absolutely agree, and I don't think the system was ever meant to cause that. Your alignment is a descriptor, it describes what you do, it doesn't tell you what to do. That is, I don't eat babies because I'm evil, I'm evil because I eat babies.

Swashbuckler
2007-12-17, 01:48 PM
[Scrubbed] There is absolutely zero reason to change or discard the alignment system from D&D -- now, or in the future.

Again, it is a ROLE-playing game. That's why there are classes like Paladins and PrC's like the various "Disciple of" offerings from the BoVD. When you play a character, you play a ROLE. Much like an open-ended theatrical performance (i.e. a Play), the characters have certain predispositions to how they react to stimuli. In the D&D context, that's called Alignment. It is a tool used to help the player play the ROLE effectively.

That being said, this is the same argument that has been going on since the inception of the game -- how does a game/group/DM deal with alignments? In retrospect of over 25 years of gaming experience, I've found that the most enjoyable games where ones in which the party was confined to certain alignments (i.e. All good; All Good & Neutral (minus CN), or All Evil) from the start. It was a known context, and it made gameplay flow that much smoother.

'Nuff said.

NerfTW
2007-12-17, 02:13 PM
If we are starting about Miko-Threads: I think they are the proof that people in general do not work when it comes to things that are more complicated than "Me smash you on head with club! Hahaha!".
No wonder the generally-working, but requires-thought-alignment-system causes problems. :)


You just used a more verbose form of "You're all stupid heads!".

Somehow I don't think calling everyone who disagrees with you unintelligent makes your argument more intelligent.

The Wanderer
2007-12-17, 02:19 PM
It sounds like a good idea for NPCs, not so great for PCs. As was said earlier, at some point the DM is going to have to call them on it if their actions are all over the place and decide on a consistent alignment for their character. Having a character who will go out of his way to singlehandedly save NPCs on a sidequest but who makes his party afraid to go to sleep with him on watch would cause all sorts of chaos in a campaign. (Note: if an unaligned character is acting as a true neutral, then there's not much difference anyway, so that I'd say just let it be).

Sleet
2007-12-17, 02:28 PM
Foolish people want to nix the alignment system in D&D. There is absolutely zero reason to change or discard the alignment system from D&D -- now, or in the future...Again, it is a ROLE-playing game.

Most narrative-heavy or roleplaying heavy games do not have alignment, and it's not a problem for them.


It sounds like a good idea for NPCs, not so great for PCs. As was said earlier, at some point the DM is going to have to call them on it if their actions are all over the place and decide on a consistent alignment for their character.

Is this a problem in RPGs that don't have alignment?

I don't have a major problem with the alignment system in D&D, but it boggles my mind when I see people saying 'But how will people roleplay?" when someone mentions removing it. Most gamers I've known can roleplay just fine without alignment.

hamishspence
2007-12-17, 02:33 PM
It keeps all the old alignments, but stresses that these require more commitment.

You can probably think of a lot of TV, D&D, Novel heroes that are hard to pigeonhole. This is for them. I suspect most DM's have had PCs who are hard to define: now, we don't need to define them.

And Paladins get LOTS of smites. Not just the old flat Smite Evil: Tactical ones.

it stressed the old Paladin with remove Disease times per week, and a Horse difficult to fit in dungeons had problems.

It also mentioned possibility of Evil Paladins. So less of the Falling crippling them. Maybe they all start LG, but some drift, WITHOUT being brought up short. A Very intersting idea.

Balok
2007-12-17, 02:41 PM
People don't have to have explicit alignments in order for others to react to them - their actions are enough to achieve that. Someone who goes around committing actions on the so called "evil list" will get a reputation, and soon enough "good" folks will avoid him (most of them) or try to kill him (the heroic ones). Does it matter if the villain has a declared "evil" alignment when the paladin strikes? His sword still cuts.

It might matter to the paladin, however. In addition to the rumors other folks have to deal with, his god infallibly knows whether he's been true to his calling or not - and can grant or without powers accordingly.

I see this as a move that gives the DM more power, rather than takes it away.

I've long felt that declared alignments are a weakness of D&D, not a strength.

My $0.02

The Wanderer
2007-12-17, 02:49 PM
Is this a problem in RPGs that don't have alignment?

I don't have a major problem with the alignment system in D&D, but it boggles my mind when I see people saying 'But how will people roleplay?" when someone mentions removing it. Most gamers I've known can roleplay just fine without alignment.

I don't have a ton of experience, (played in 2 D&D campaigns adding up to about half a dozen sessions, give or take), but in that time I have seen people do actions that are wildly out of character for the character they've created for themselves. There are more cases that I've read on here from more experienced players, including a guy playing a LG cleric and another playing a paladin arguing if could loot a comrade's body before bringing him back to life and such.

In the current system a DM can step in at that juncture and warn them off. Without an alignment they would have an excuse to get away with it... and if no one else in the party wanted/could stop them and neither could the guy who was a corpse at the moment, what could stop them? At the extreme worst case it could become a case of the biggest bully always wins and not much fun for the other players.

(And it does happen to a degree already: in my adopted little sister's campaign her chaotic neutral rogue has a motto that goes "Stealing makes everything better", and the other players have taken to measures like putting caltrops in their equipment bags to keep her out. And she'd not the worst I've seen in my limited time playing).

Deepblue706
2007-12-17, 02:53 PM
I never found alignments to be a very good aspect of D&D, anyway. I mean, in honesty, does categorizing morals and ethics add to the game? A Paladin can still have to adhere to a code, and a Cleric should still follow the path of his/her god. Some people want to see it further implemented, using a numeric system to judge levels of goodness, etc - but then people will eventually end up saying absurd things like "My character is so evil - he's a level 10 Hilter!" It's completely unnecessary.

And, don't even get me started on the absurdity that is "Smite Evil".

Okay, some people might be idiots and go from "I'm a hero!" to "Let's stab villagers!", but you don't design a game to monitor the immature. GMs/DMs just dock experience from people who aren't playing in an appropriate manner. Or, they boot to dork from the group. I mean, if you were playing cards and were afraid of cheaters, do you strip everyone naked and survey them with cameras, or do you just, say, not play with scumbags?

Other games perform absolutely fine without having to tag corporate managers with, "Hi, I'm Lawful Evil!", etc. GURPS is a great example - which actually allows for characters to freely develop on the good/evil scale and numerous other ways, rather than clamping them down as tightly as D&D does. The alignment system was never that good an idea, and it's about time that the game took a turn away from polluting your character sheets with additional nonsense, and got back to individual characters, themselves - without categories, they won't be forced in molds, and there won't be the omni-present moral dualism (with little shades of gray in the middle) that legitimizes "good" parties killing "monsters" because they're "evil".

Edit: oh, and uh, to make this an actual reply to the OP (sorry for some reason I thought this was under a different area of the forum) - If OoTS wasn't a parody, no alignments would be necessary. But, since it is, alignments should probably be given to every single character, not just PCs.

Sleet
2007-12-17, 03:00 PM
Without an alignment they would have an excuse to get away with it... and if no one else in the party wanted/could stop them and neither could the guy who was a corpse at the moment, what could stop them?

I give up - what could? If the cleric acts like a borderline psycho, then he's a borderline psycho, and protestations to the opposite will be met with rolling of eyes by the other party members. He'll have to take that up with his god, and the player will have to take that up with the other players.

In other words, it doesn't take an alignment system for a GM (or the other players) to say "That doesn't strike me as something a cleric of the God of Goodness and Puppies would do, you know. Do you really want to do that?"

Edit: I don't really want to start an alignment debate here (this isn't the gaming board, after all), and I don't have a big problem with D&D alignment, but i really don't grok this notion of "can't roleplay without alignment," because I've seen it done and done well more times than I can count.

The Wanderer
2007-12-17, 03:20 PM
Edit: I don't really want to start an alignment debate here (this isn't the gaming board, after all), and I don't have a big problem with D&D alignment, but i really don't grok this notion of "can't roleplay without alignment," because I've seen it done and done well more times than I can count.

Note I'm not saying can't, (despite my original post), I'm just saying it helps. It gives concrete reasons why players can't do things. (Without, in the example we just used, the DM having to play the god of the cleric/paladin and then having the player counter that the DM is limiting creativity, railroading the game to the way he wants to, etc).

That said, treating alignment as the be all and end all is a clear mistake, (the Giant has gone through painful lengths to point that out in the entire strip), as is playing strictly by alignment without giving a thought for what it means. (Ditto previous statement in parenthesis).

Slight Origins of the PCs spoiler:

The great example quoted on this forum is from Roy's first adventuring party in Origins. This party was led by a paladin who along with the rest of the group wanted to get rid of the, (at that time), surly, nasty dwarf cleric named Durkon, but couldn't do it himself without losing class abilities, so he tried to cheat the system by sending Durkon on suicide missions.

Kai Maera
2007-12-17, 03:55 PM
Alignment is a very important aspect of D&D. It's good to have a very simplistic system to put people into their various places in the universe, as it creates a sense of order -- no longer are people forced to watch their backs, for fear that their ally will backstab them.

It creates a kind of predictable nature. Because that's precisely what alignment is -- a measure of predictable behavior.

By removing this system, you take away a very important part of the playability of D&D, since almost everyone believes that D&D is all about fights and looting. And, for the most part, this is true.

Don't compare D&D to the rest of your roleplays, please. Anyone you play is adaptable and ever changing -- not the sort of thing you find throughout history whenever someone was on a mission.

Prowl
2007-12-17, 04:14 PM
Alignment is a very important aspect of D&D. It's good to have a very simplistic system to put people into their various places in the universe, as it creates a sense of order -- no longer are people forced to watch their backs, for fear that their ally will backstab them.

It creates a kind of predictable nature. Because that's precisely what alignment is -- a measure of predictable behavior.

If one were to argue that the pre-4th ed. alignment system were inherently biased towards Law and against Chaos, your argument would serve quite well for that purpose.

The question is - comfort zones aside - is this bias truly a good thing for the genre?

Morty
2007-12-17, 05:00 PM
Alignment should be gotten rid of because it doesn't contribute anything positive to the game, while enforcing black-and-white rigid moralty and causing endless, pointless debates. The way they seem to be doing it in 4ed seems like great compromise- classes like paladin or cleric will still have their moral codes, while all other people can forget about that crap and actually play a game where not everything is obvious.

Ancalagon
2007-12-17, 06:01 PM
Alignment should be gotten rid of because it doesn't contribute anything positive to the game, while enforcing black-and-white rigid moralty [...].

Strange. My alignment-system does not do that? Am I doing something the wrong way?

Muyten
2007-12-17, 06:05 PM
Alignment should be gotten rid of because it doesn't contribute anything positive to the game, while enforcing black-and-white rigid moralty and causing endless, pointless debates. The way they seem to be doing it in 4ed seems like great compromise- classes like paladin or cleric will still have their moral codes, while all other people can forget about that crap and actually play a game where not everything is obvious.

Exactly. It seems to me that people who like alignment can just be aligned in 4th edition and everyone else can just be unaligned. Everybody wins!
What's so bad about that?

Balok
2007-12-17, 08:16 PM
There are more cases that I've read on here from more experienced players, including a guy playing a LG cleric and another playing a paladin arguing if could loot a comrade's body before bringing him back to life and such.

In the current system a DM can step in at that juncture and warn them off. Without an alignment they would have an excuse to get away with it... and if no one else in the party wanted/could stop them and neither could the guy who was a corpse at the moment, what could stop them? At the extreme worst case it could become a case of the biggest bully always wins and not much fun for the other players.The gamemaster can still warn them off. He can tell the paladin, or the supposedly good cleric, "You remember your moral training from paladin school, and it tells you this is wrong." The guy might still do it, but the GM has warned him. And the next time he goes for a cool "lay on hands" and... nothing happens, he realizes he's gone all tan. Sure, he's likely to be raw about it. But a smart player prays for guidance, and maybe his god sends him a dream in which he relives what he did, and gets a hint what he must now do to regain divine trust. Characters who get their power from deities are easy to manage.

Note: I probably wouldn't rip a paladin's levels for a simple theft. But his god would certainly notice and he might receive some prophetic dreams.


(And it does happen to a degree already: in my adopted little sister's campaign her chaotic neutral rogue has a motto that goes "Stealing makes everything better", and the other players have taken to measures like putting caltrops in their equipment bags to keep her out. And she'd not the worst I've seen in my limited time playing).Were I a character in that campaign, I'd replace my regular equipment bag with a bag of devouring, and then sit back and watch the fun.

When characters behave badly towards other players, the GM doesn't have to do much - the wrong parties will usually sort it out. And without alignments, the player being punished can't even go to the GM and say that "they're acting outside their alignments!"

I guess I'm pretty lucky because my long time gaming group doesn't have anyone who routinely victimizes the other characters. But I can guess what would happen if one of us did create such a character - the other characters would either straighten him out pronto, or kill him.

Sleet
2007-12-17, 09:22 PM
... it creates a sense of order -- no longer are people forced to watch their backs, for fear that their ally will backstab them. ... By removing this system, you take away a very important part of the playability of D&D, since almost everyone believes that D&D is all about fights and looting. And, for the most part, this is true.

Wow. Not only is that 100% counter to my experience, but it doesn't make much sense. If the alignment system keeps people from backstabbing their allies, how did the game get the reputation you say it has to begin with?

(Been playing D&D for 25 years now, never once witnessed an in-party backstab.)

The_Hunting_Enemy
2007-12-17, 09:25 PM
Just a quick question. If say, in Drama, I'm playing a character with an odd moral code, does that mean I have to tag an alignment onto them to understand them? No. It just means I have to go deeper into the character and define what it is that makes him act/think that way.

Mechanically, alignment is a useful tool, but in Roleplay it isn't really necessary.

Just my 10c

Kai Maera
2007-12-18, 01:40 AM
Wow. Not only is that 100% counter to my experience, but it doesn't make much sense. If the alignment system keeps people from backstabbing their allies, how did the game get the reputation you say it has to begin with?

(Been playing D&D for 25 years now, never once witnessed an in-party backstab.)

The alignment system has people act in order with their alignment. A good friend will not backstab you. A neutral friend may, an evil friend is best kept under surveillance.

And how did the game get the reputation of being about fights and looting? Give me an example of a single D&D game that doesn't have fighting or looting.

It doesn't exist because D&D is generally all about fighting monsters and getting treasure!

Draz74
2007-12-18, 02:02 AM
Major characters who I think definitely wouldn't be Unaligned in the 4E system:
:xykon: :sabine: :roach:

Other major characters who I think might not be Unaligned:
Hinjo, :redcloak:, Tsukiko.

Unaligned for sure:
:roy: :haley: :elan: :mitd: :belkar: :vaarsuvius: :nale: :thog: :miko:

Basically, outsiders and especially-evil undead seem like the only "obvious" aligned characters. Paladins and clerics who are clearly and indisputably being good paladins and revel in goodness, or clerics whose gods are very evil and revel in that evil, might also escape the "Unaligned" designation. Anyone else? Unaligned.

(And while Durkon is good, and a cleric, he's not so focused on being good as most Paladins are. After all, Thor (while good) is a pretty casual type god, not a holier-than-thou, and Durkon follows that ethic.)

The Extinguisher
2007-12-18, 02:50 AM
I find the whole unaligned thing nothing more than another way to play True Neutral without being assoicated with Druids and fence-sitters.

The whole point is that an alignment is supposed to describe your actions, not dictate them. And since each alignment can be played to such broad terms, I see no reason to 'unalign' people when they could easily fit into true neutral.

The alignment system is a grid, not a line. You have an infinte plane to work with there.

David Argall
2007-12-18, 03:08 AM
The gamemaster can still warn them off. He can tell the paladin, or the supposedly good cleric, "You remember your moral training from paladin school, and it tells you this is wrong."


I don't see this as really workable. It seems to just add grey to the situation, meaning the DM is on his own, and in most cases, simply letting the players do as they please.

I shall have to wait for 4.0 to be sure, but my bet is that this "system" is combining the worst of both ideas.

Revlid
2007-12-18, 05:04 AM
Major characters who I think definitely wouldn't be Unaligned in the 4E system:
:xykon: :sabine: :roach:

Other major characters who I think might not be Unaligned:
Hinjo, :redcloak:, Tsukiko.

Unaligned for sure:
:roy: :haley: :elan: :mitd: :belkar: :vaarsuvius: :nale: :thog: :miko:

What? Hinjo is clearly Lawful Good. Tsukiko is clearly Chaotic Evil.

Roy is clearly Lawful Good. Elan is the epitome of Chaotic Good. Belkar is so Chaotic Evil it hurts. Nale is the stereotypical Lawful Evil. Both the Monster in the Darkness and Thog are that most terrible of alignments, Chaotic Stupid.

Unaligned is Redcloak (He's Something Evil, read SoD), Haley (although she's pretty clearly Chaotic Neutral/Good), Vaarsuvius (probably True Neutral) and Miko (Lawful Neutral). And all of them can be aligned with a minimum of fuss.

Morty
2007-12-18, 08:51 AM
Strange. My alignment-system does not do that? Am I doing something the wrong way?

Oh, sure, it's possible to work with alignment system so that it doesn't completely suck. But it doesn't bring anything positive to the game, so why keep something that only needs to be changed in order to improve the game?


The alignment system has people act in order with their alignment. A good friend will not backstab you. A neutral friend may, an evil friend is best kept under surveillance.

And you need nine unflexible archetypes to tell a good friend from bad one?


It doesn't exist because D&D is generally all about fighting monsters and getting treasure!

Then I'm apparently not playing D&D when I'm playing sessions where I do much more than kill monsters and take their stuff. Strange.

Last_resort_33
2007-12-18, 09:33 AM
What games other than D&D actually have an alignment system?

Alignment is complicated. It IS subjective. If someone had cast detect evil on *sigh* Adolf Hitler *sigh* then he would have been quite surprised at the result. Does that mean he wasn't Evil? Miko didn't count as Evil, and she would have been shocked if someone has said that she was.

You have three options as far as I can see.

1. Scrap the whole damned thing

2. Accept that this is a fantasy universe that doesn't work like ours, where there exist universal truths of Good and Evil.

3. Let the DM judge alignments on a case by case basis. As in "if you could see and evaluate this person in their entirety, what would you, or your denomination, judge them as?" Miko, more than likely would have been able to Smile Evil on Roy. A Cleric of Nerull may see themselves as neutral, death being a natural process, A Cleric of Heironeous might agree, a Cleric of Pelor on the other hand would see him as being Evil.

Craig1f
2007-12-18, 11:16 AM
I think the rigid alignment rules of DnD are one of the quarks that makes the game interesting. It gives it flavor. It gives the game legacy.

They should be careful about changing the game too much, so that it just feels like a MMORPG. Unaligned characters are boring.

I do like the idea of "evil curious". I sympathize with a character that might be inherently evil, but raised Good, so the character is good, but occasionally does something evil when they think they can get away with it, out of curiosity.

Milandros
2007-12-18, 01:49 PM
The alignment system has people act in order with their alignment. A good friend will not backstab you. A neutral friend may, an evil friend is best kept under surveillance.


Eeek.... this is a common misconception. A neutral friend will not backstab you. Normal people - those who don't go out and risk their lives regularly in order to defend the innocent, protect the weak, etc, and don't sacrifice significantly on behalf of others also tend not to kill for pleasure or profit or murder their friends for their goods. They care for their friends and family, and will help them if they can. They feel sympathetic for others in great need, but just don't do anything about it.

Neutral does not mean 50% good actions and 50% evil actions, nor does it mean "I only kill half a dozen of my friends and steal their stuff during my lifetime, not all of them." It just means you don't go out and perform many genuinely good actions either.

Milandros
2007-12-18, 01:59 PM
I can work with alignment, I've never had any real problems with it. Usually, when I DM, I only really enforce it for those who have abilities based on it - clerics, paladins, monks, etc. Fortunately, thanks to the good group I play with, it's never really been an issue - I have no "I'm chaotic neutral so I can act just like I was chaotic evil if I want to and not be evil, honest" moronic spoilers in the group.

Removing alignment isn't a problem - If I can play superhero games like Champions without the need for alignment, I see little non-mechanical need for it in D&D. It will make things a little more difficult in places unless abilities are completely decoupled from actions - i.e. no more paladins,as such, just a bunch of skills and powers called "paladin" but you could just as easily be a baby-eating atheist nomad. Otherwise, it is going to be necessary to carefully define the code of conduct under which a paladin can act - not just saying "must stay LG, can commit no Evil acts". Instead the Code of Pelor, the Code of Bahumat and/or the Code of Philisophical Devotion To The Cause Of Righteousness will be needed.

monty
2007-12-18, 08:47 PM
The alignment system has people act in order with their alignment. A good friend will not backstab you. A neutral friend may, an evil friend is best kept under surveillance.

And how did the game get the reputation of being about fights and looting? Give me an example of a single D&D game that doesn't have fighting or looting.

It doesn't exist because D&D is generally all about fighting monsters and getting treasure!

A neutral friend will definitely not backstab you, and an evil friend (emphasis on friend) will also probably not unless they have a reason to do so. Being evil doesn't necessarily mean you're incapable of having meaningful relationships.

As for your fighting and looting point, I suppose my Vow of Poverty/Peace character doesn't exist, then? Good roleplayers don't need piles of gold and dead bodies to have a fun game.

Roland St. Jude
2007-12-18, 11:03 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep in mind our rules on flaming and not insulting people based on playstyles/preferences. Thank you.

Draz74
2007-12-18, 11:39 PM
What? Hinjo is clearly Lawful Good. Tsukiko is clearly Chaotic Evil.

Roy is clearly Lawful Good. Elan is the epitome of Chaotic Good. Belkar is so Chaotic Evil it hurts. Nale is the stereotypical Lawful Evil. Both the Monster in the Darkness and Thog are that most terrible of alignments, Chaotic Stupid.

Unaligned is Redcloak (He's Something Evil, read SoD), Haley (although she's pretty clearly Chaotic Neutral/Good), Vaarsuvius (probably True Neutral) and Miko (Lawful Neutral). And all of them can be aligned with a minimum of fuss.

Right. That's all in 3.5E.

The whole point of this thread was to discuss how the rules will treat alignment differently in 4E. And in the new system, it sounds like most characters won't be particularly affected by Smite, Detect X, etc., unless they have some kind of Upper Planes or Lower Planes connection or something. They may still act good or evil, but they won't be Good or Evil in terms of the rules.

BobTheDog
2007-12-18, 11:41 PM
I find it interesting to see the arguments that blossom every time something that's being changed (or not being changed) in 4E is brought to bear.

Roughly half the people start ranting that it's a stupid change because they like the rule, or because they don't like the idea of a new edition. The others get back at them by defending the changes proposed because they didn't like the original rules or they're in love with 4E.

To the "nay-sayers": You shouldn't look at the changes and think only of a) your personal tastes and b) "if it works, don't fix it". There are greater things attached to small changes, and most of them seem to be for the best. I'll get back to this in a bit.

To the "yay-sayers": Trying to defend 4E by attacking the oppinions of the "nay-sayers" won't help at all. They'll just think you're a WotC-puppy that would accept anything that the designers threw our way just because, and keep thinking that the changes are stupid. Constructive posting is a good thing to attempt, specially when you're trying to convince someone that what they vehemently oppose is not so bad, after all.

Now, for this specific tidbit. The alignment system needed change. Sure, it works. Sure, you don't have to paint the alignments black or white and keep waiting for the paladin to forget to say "bless you" when someone sneezes so you can laugh at him as his powers go away. But!


It restricts the players. Sure, you don't want paladins going around stealing purses, hence paladins still need to follow some standards, hence the alignment system is still there, only diminished to account for these specific cases. So now the paladin's buddy can tag along and do good stuff for people, but he doesn't need to change his alignment to good and be vulnerable to the blackguards smite good.
It restricts DMs. Okay, I've got a paladin and a good cleric in my group. Now, whenever I want a good, pesky villain, I need to make him Neutral (LN or CN, whatever). Otherwise, as soon as he shows up, the paladin will see him for what he is, the cleric will cast a bunch of defenses based on his alignment, and he'll go down in one hit from the paladin's smite.
It restricts the designers. Designers need to think carefully about every single monster's alignment. If most of the MM was neutral, for example, paladins would suck. Their only decent attack ability depends on the monsters being Evil. And if a Monster is Evil, designers need to account for both "paladin-enhanced" groups and "paladin-lacking" group. You need a stronger Evil beastie to resist paladins (and good clerics), but not too strong that a Neutral party can't take him.
It adds a lot of mechanics without enough fun. I mean, a Detect Evil need you to check a chart every time to see "how much" evil someone is. And all you get from that is an estimation of who is the biggest threat, if you're lucky enough that the BBEG has a stronger aura than his lackeys (not always the case).
It is unbalanced! Protection from Evil. 1st level spell. Cast it (at 1/hour per level duration), and NO ONE, regardless of alignment, can control your mind. 13th level wizard just cast mass hold person on the group? Not a problem. Dominate monster? Useless. A Lawful Good angel, trying to charm you into not attacking someone? Pfffft. But wait, at 5th level, you can have Magic Circle against Evil, and then everyone withing 10 ft is likewise affected. So, when the epic evil wizard dominates the fighter and orders him to attack you, he'll stop 10 ft. short of doing it and be freed! And it's a friggin' 3rd level spell!


So, apart from personal tastes (I like parts of the alignment system, and dislike others, mainly the spellcasting involved), I'm happy to see it change.

Edit: Oops, got carried away and forgot about the "on topic" bit. The funny thing with this is that it could mean that in 4E, Belkar isn't evil. Now THAT would be funny! :smallbiggrin:

David Argall
2007-12-19, 02:04 AM
The alignment system needed change. Sure, it works. Sure, you don't have to paint the alignments black or white and keep waiting for the paladin to forget to say "bless you" when someone sneezes so you can laugh at him as his powers go away. But!

It restricts the players. It restricts DMs.
They need restricting. The game is no fun for the players if they can just do as they please. And the DM needs guidance in determining what they can't do.



whenever I want a good, pesky villain, I need to make him Neutral (LN or CN, whatever). Otherwise, as soon as he shows up, the paladin will see him for what he is, the cleric will cast a bunch of defenses based on his alignment, and he'll go down in one hit from the paladin's smite.
Detect Evil is a mere 1st level spell. A proper counter magic item would only run about 2000, and an item based on Undetectable alignment would be 10,000. These are not huge sums once you leave the baby levels. Toss a few evil villains for them to detect and a few neutrals for them to get used to not being sure, and and some valuable patrons or allies who get insulted when the party tries to cast spells at them, and your recurring villain has no trouble being evil.



It restricts the designers. designers need to account for both "paladin-enhanced" groups and "paladin-lacking" group. You need a stronger Evil beastie to resist paladins (and good clerics), but not too strong that a Neutral party can't take him.
Designers have to account for a variety of different parties in any case, or rather don't. Some monsters should be nasty/wimp for any style of party and wimp/nasty for a different style.
The only way to avoid this is to restrict all parties or all monsters to one mold, and that would really be a restriction.



It is unbalanced!
So balance it. If PE is so powerful, make it 2nd level or cut out some of its uses, or ...
The flaw is not part of the alignment system and will not be corrected by making the system all grey.

The Extinguisher
2007-12-19, 02:43 AM
Or better yet, make good villians occasionally.

That'll really throw them off.

BobTheDog
2007-12-19, 02:43 AM
They need restricting. The game is no fun for the players if they can just do as they please. And the DM needs guidance in determining what they can't do.

Yes, they do need restricting. If they kill someone, the law should come for them. If they burn the village, the villagers would most likely form a lynchmob. Story restriction is not the same as rule restriction.

I mean, what is it that makes Bards so chaotic? Why can't they be courtiers? Why can't they take it along with a monastic life? I mean, a Wizard can manage to learn how to pick locks and find traps and become a multiclass Rogue, but a Monk cannot learn how to sing?! What's that that makes a Monk so special that the Universe will punish him if he ever tells his masters to bite it?


So balance it. If PE is so powerful, make it 2nd level or cut out some of its uses, or ...
The flaw is not part of the alignment system and will not be corrected by making the system all grey.

Sure, Protection from Evil is broken, and it can be fixed, but there are more problems than that.

Ah, but the flaw IS of the system. I don't think magic that protects you from the forces of evil, or that destroys agents of evil should be taken lightly. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I like the changes they're proposing. What's been said is that the alignment dependant magic that will remain will probably be very powerful, considering that it will only affect VERY evil things.

My problem with the alignment system "as is" is that, mechanically, an orc peasant is as evil as a Pit Fiend.

Querzis
2007-12-19, 09:11 AM
Yes, they do need restricting. If they kill someone, the law should come for them. If they burn the village, the villagers would most likely form a lynchmob. Story restriction is not the same as rule restriction.

I mean, what is it that makes Bards so chaotic? Why can't they be courtiers? Why can't they take it along with a monastic life? I mean, a Wizard can manage to learn how to pick locks and find traps and become a multiclass Rogue, but a Monk cannot learn how to sing?! What's that that makes a Monk so special that the Universe will punish him if he ever tells his masters to bite it?

Nothing, its not that monk are so special that the Universe will punish him if he do chaotic act, its that someone who had enough discipline to actually become a monk is unlikely to do that. Of course people got problem with the alignement systems if they see it as a rule in the game.

Its not this guy is a monk so hes lawfull. Its this guy is so Lawfull that he decided to become a Monk!!! Nobody chaotic or even neutral got the discipline to become a freaking monk and I dont see why the hell they would want to. It just doesnt fit their style and their personallity in the first place. Just like nobody Lawfull would want to, or have what it take to become the powerhouse of fury the barbarian is. And please dont talk about controlled rage, yes Lawfull people control their rage and, since rage is an uncontrollable explosion of anger, controlling your rage means you are NOT freaking raging.

If a guy that was so Lawfull, disciplined, orderly and humble that he was able to become a monk ever become chaotic, I'm guessing magic is involved because otherwise I dont see how thats freaking possible. The problem I got with alignement in the 4th edition is not about good and evil, that wont change at all. Even if he doesnt have the alignement to prove it, evil people will still do the same things and be hunt down by the hero. My problem is that it totally screw up Lawfull and chaotic alignement.

Being Lawfull or chaotic is your personnality, your style, your way of thinking and those are things that simply cant be changed as easely as your morality. I can think of hundreds of character who were evil and became good and I can think of thousands of good or neutral character who became evil. But a Lawfull character becoming Chaotic or a Chaotic character becoming Lawfull? Never saw that happening unless magic is involved.

Oh and being chaotic or lawfull got nothing to do with breaking rules, when will you people finaly get that?

Morty
2007-12-19, 11:35 AM
They need restricting. The game is no fun for the players if they can just do as they please. And the DM needs guidance in determining what they can't do.


If players are acting childishly, then even arbitrary black/white moralty system won't help them, they'll just play CE characters and claim it's "roleplaying". Also, I fail to notice how removing alignment lets players "do as they please". If players go around killing villagers, high-level heroes will come and stomp them into ground as danger to society. Is alignment system needed for this?

BobTheDog
2007-12-19, 01:26 PM
Oh and being chaotic or lawfull got nothing to do with breaking rules, when will you people finaly get that?

Allow me to quote the book's description:


“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority [emphasis mine], and reliability.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Feel free to read the complete descriptions of each alignment here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/description.html).

Querzis
2007-12-19, 02:08 PM
Allow me to quote the book's description:



Feel free to read the complete descriptions of each alignment here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/description.html).

I'm really trying to see what is that supposed to have to do with what I just said. Yeah obedience to authority is a must for Lawfull people, hell the best way to know if someone is Lawfull or chaotic is to ask them why they did something: «Its my duty» being the Lawfull answer and «I felt like it» is the chaotic answer. But I'm pretty sure a Lawfull rogue who do everything is master ask him to do is gonna end up breaking many laws and rules. And I'm pretty sure the LG paladin is gonna end up breaking most of the rules of the NE country. And the LN spy wont have much problem with breaking many laws to do what his king order him to do.

And, by the way, this was mainly directed at people who still think chaotic people have to break rules and hate authority. A CG guy in a LG country isnt likely to break any law. Chaotic people dont hate laws and rules, they just find it irrevelant. For them the king in front of them is just a regular fellow and a rule mean absolutely nothing. That doesnt mean they are gonna try to kill every noble they see and break all the laws they heard about.

hamishspence
2007-12-19, 02:54 PM
Useful, that bit about Chaotic not automatically hating authority.

Since reading Fiendish Codex II, which is a very useful book for defining evil and lawful acts despite the fact that some people seem to dislike it, I tended to define Law as being associated with Control and Chaos as being associated with Freedom.

A Chaotic Guy will dislike infringements of individual Freedom. Belkar, in Origin, and all the way through the strip, is the first to say he is only going along with anything, like, say, not killing Elan for XP, because he is being coerced. He is very Chaotic, sometimes doing things which get him into trouble, like setting fire to tents, out of sheer desire for mayhem, even if it puts him at risk.

Chaotic Good people, especially those whose players or DMS use the Exalted category of Goodness, will focus their efforts heavily on tyrants and tyrannies, where the people are forced to live a very narrow lifestyle and punished severely for stepping outside.

They will be annoyed when they come across annoying regulations in Good societies, but some things they will not only consider relevant, but approve of.

Surfing HalfOrc
2007-12-19, 03:33 PM
I (unfortunatly) see Fourth Edition going down in flames.

I don't see the reason for the new edition.

First Edition collected most of Gary Gygax's notes into a single ruleset.

Second Edition rewrote the game to eliminate the Gygax Era, and fix any number of problems. Then TSR went into a financial death spiral, was rescued and rebuilt by WotC into 3.X edition.

Now Fourth Edition is being rolled out, but there doesn't seem to be an overriding reason for it. Third Edition's rules work, for the most part (grapple needs a bit of help), but the changes proposed don't seem to be particularily WANTED by the gaming community, or at least the ones I hang out with. And nobody seems to be an overiding personality at the game company.

Am I wrong? Is there an overwhelming desire to completely rewrite the rules, reissue the entire game in a manner that isn't "backwards compatable?"

EDIT: I started a thread up in Gaming using this post. Please reply up there, as this thread is already an alignment thread, and I don't want to hijack it.

fractal
2007-12-19, 03:39 PM
You would have a flurry of paladins that think it a good idea to torch a village that is hiding a high-level bad guy. The fact that you or I may think it a great idea just means we are not 'LG'.
I had a character who did largely that, although it was an inn, not a village. However, my character was TN, and even he was aware that it was not one of his high points (he really hated the BBEG in question, though, and thought most of the innocents should be able to get out without difficulty).

Why have "unaligned" individuals? I've always thought of alignment as a shorthand for how you can be expected to act in the future. Across the nine categories, though, you should get every sort of personality that's present in the real world. Furthermore, if a character's personality shifts a bit, there's nothing wrong with changing their alignment (with the exception of a few classes).

Although the alignment system is hardly necessary, there's nothing wrong with it for roleplaying (except maybe some of the mechanical effects).

BobTheDog
2007-12-19, 03:44 PM
I'm really trying to see what is that supposed to have to do with what I just said.

Let me start this off by pointing out that this (our discussion) is one of the reasons the alignment system needs to be reworked. You clearly take what is written on the D&D books to mean something different than I do. If I were a player at your table, or vice-versa, we would be having this sort of argument during the game and getting everyone else bored. Or the one of us being the DM would cut the other off by saying "I'm the DM and I say it works this way, so stop it" and the other would be annoyed (I'd be annoyed enough to consider quitting).

That said, I feel glad that you're taking this argument in a nice, civil way, and I'll reply to your points in the sense that we're trying to reach some consensus here. So, here goes:


Yeah obedience to authority is a must for Lawfull people, hell the best way to know if someone is Lawfull or chaotic is to ask them why they did something: «Its my duty» being the Lawfull answer and «I felt like it» is the chaotic answer.

So far, so good.


But I'm pretty sure a Lawfull rogue who do everything is master ask him to do is gonna end up breaking many laws and rules.

In my game, that would make a Neutral (in the L/C sense) rogue. A Lawful rogue would bend the rules if he needed to, but outright break them would be something of a "last resort" action. "You need me to steal?! I'm no thief! I'm a treasure hunter! You can find plenty of one-time pickpockets in the town market, go find your man there."


And I'm pretty sure the LG paladin is gonna end up breaking most of the rules of the NE country.

No, he won't. He shouldn't, at least. A LG character should not arrive in an evil baronate and just overthrow the dictatorship. That's the CG playing field. The LG in a LE (or any E, at that) will try to work within the existing system, and again, only break the system as a last resort. "Sorry, but I cannot support your rebellion. The duke is the rightful ruler of this land, even if he is inept and evil."


And the LN spy wont have much problem with breaking many laws to do what his king order him to do.

That, again, would make him Neutral. Perhaps even Chaotic. He is Lawful only to his king, after all, and Chaotic to the rest of the world.


And, by the way, this was mainly directed at people who still think chaotic people have to break rules and hate authority.

He doesn't have to break the rules. But he will, if it suits him. And I do think no Chaotic character should be okay with authority, to the point of feeling grossed, annoyed, or enraged to see the town guards charging taxes off the peasantry. Even if it's fair taxes.


A CG guy in a LG country isnt likely to break any law. Chaotic people dont hate laws and rules, they just find it irrevelant. For them the king in front of them is just a regular fellow and a rule mean absolutely nothing.

Read "chaos" on the SRD again. "Resentment towards legitimate authority", "only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully".

That strikes me as an opposition to laws and rules (I'd say "hatred" is a way you can roleplay it, along with "subversion", "avoidance" etc.).


That doesnt mean they are gonna try to kill every noble they see and break all the laws they heard about.

No, they won't, because killing is in the Evil court, and breaking all the laws in existance is the field of "Chaotic Stupid". But breaking all the laws that oppress people is almost adequate, and a Chaotic character should see oppression in a lot of laws (including the "fair taxes" I noted above).

Although I personally think that Chaoticness is more on the lines of "breaking the system" than "breaking the rules". The Chaotic guy is not the guy who doesn't pay his taxes. He's the guy who robs the taxmen; gives the money back to the community if he's CG, keeps it for himself if he's CN, kills the guards while he's at it if he's CE.

---

Notice that the new alignment rules seem to indicate that this will be more clearly defined. You're not chaotic unless you're REALLY Chaotic. Stealing for a living (or for profit) is not Chaotic, with a capital C. Stealing entire kingdoms treasuries to cause the downfall of entire systems of government might be Chaotic.

On the other hand, mere townguards will cease to be capital-L Lawful. Someone who goes out in the wild to try to "educate" a tribe of nomads on the virtues of established codes is Lawful. A guy who devotes himself to hunting down renegades and making them pay for their crimes, too.

This is a good change, in my point of view, because it makes alignment mean something. You no longer change alignment casually. It takes commitment to devote yourself to the cause.

Edit: Whew, this is BIG. Sorry, everyone, I'll try to refrain from lenghty posts from now on. And perhaps try to squeeze more OotS-related comparisons, so that my posts are not blatantly off-topic. :smallwink:

vbushido
2007-12-19, 04:05 PM
An alignment system isn't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
Damage tables aren't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
Dice aren't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
All that's needed is adaptablility and creativity.

No game is perfect, but some have more of what I like than what I don't. And a good roleplayer can work with the restrictions of any game.

Mechanics don't get in the way of a good roleplayer, but bad roleplaying can get in the way of game mechanics. So, alignment system or none, I can work with it.

-----
Seen on a rubber chicken: puns don't kill people, pullets do.

Muyten
2007-12-19, 05:23 PM
An alignment system isn't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
Damage tables aren't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
Dice aren't strictly necessary for roleplaying.
All that's needed is adaptablility and creativity.

No game is perfect, but some have more of what I like than what I don't. And a good roleplayer can work with the restrictions of any game.

Mechanics don't get in the way of a good roleplayer, but bad roleplaying can get in the way of game mechanics. So, alignment system or none, I can work with it.

-----


Well I'm not sure I agree. Mechanics get in the way of good roleplaying all the time. For example when a battle that takes a few minutes in-game takes hours in real life due to die-rolling, rule look-ups and tactical decision-making it kinda goes from being roleplaying to being boardgaming. Not that I don't love it but to me most mechanics get in the way of roleplaying.

Alignment however is to me one of the worst get-in-the-wayers. This is because Aligment mechanicaly dictates(or at least limits) the behaviour of your character. Sure mechanics are useful when it comes to figuring out if a character CAN do something but when it also dictates if he WANTS to do it I think it's too much and to me that is what alignment does.

Morty
2007-12-19, 05:27 PM
Alignment however is to me one of the worst get-in-the-wayers. This is because Aligment mechanicaly dictates(or at least limits) the behaviour of your character. Sure mechanics are useful when it comes to figuring out if a character CAN do something but when it also dictates if he WANTS to do it I think it's too much and to me that is what alignment does.

Now this is applying the alignment the wrong way around. Alignment system is bad, but it doesn't limit character's behavior in any way. It's a tool to describe behavior, not dictate it.

Wender
2007-12-19, 06:09 PM
Let me start this off by pointing out that this (our discussion) is one of the reasons the alignment system needs to be reworked. You clearly take what is written on the D&D books to mean something different than I do. If I were a player at your table, or vice-versa, we would be having this sort of argument during the game and getting everyone else bored. Or the one of us being the DM would cut the other off by saying "I'm the DM and I say it works this way, so stop it" and the other would be annoyed (I'd be annoyed enough to consider quitting).

I will merrily concede that TSR/WotC have made the discussion difficult by offering vague, wobbly and changing definitions especially of "Law" and "Chaos."


In my game, that would make a Neutral (in the L/C sense) rogue. A Lawful rogue would bend the rules if he needed to, but outright break them would be something of a "last resort" action. "You need me to steal?! I'm no thief! I'm a treasure hunter! You can find plenty of one-time pickpockets in the town market, go find your man there."

Well, that's where things get interesting. I read "submission to authority" as "submission to an authority," not "submission to any authority." A mobster may be highly Lawful in the sense that he follows the codes and practices of the Mob, but this is so different from conventional legality that FBI agents have bemusedly noted that Mob businesses hide their books even when they're totally clean and conceal practices that are perfectly legal.

What's more, the rulebooks have noted that the reason for submission to authority varies by moral alignment: Good lawfuls believe that a strong social structure is the best way to accomplish the most Good (or a Good in its own right) while Evil lawfuls believe that a strong social structure is the best way to advance their own personal interests. More simply, a Good lawful will take pains not to break the law they recognize; an Evil lawful will take pains not to get caught.

I part ways with the books over the issue of self-discipline: I have always hated the equation of the equation of strong self-discipline with a Lawful alignment (e.g., the monk). In my games and for my characters it's a question of their Wisdom score, not their alignment.


No, he won't. He shouldn't, at least. A LG character should not arrive in an evil baronate and just overthrow the dictatorship. That's the CG playing field. The LG in a LE (or any E, at that) will try to work within the existing system, and again, only break the system as a last resort. "Sorry, but I cannot support your rebellion. The duke is the rightful ruler of this land, even if he is inept and evil."

True. However, if the baron were to take sick and die, or take a most unfortunate tumble from a balustrade, the LE and LG characters would both voice the same regret, and then the LE character would double-check to make sure there was no evidence pointing to his involvement in the killing.

The LG character, meanwhile, might set up a charity and a hospital for the poor subjects of the evil baron, and when the baron tried to shut it down by force, well then outright opposition to the baron is justified (but not in the form of just killing him outright unless he's stupid enough to attack the LG character personally and unlucky enough to not merely be defeated). If the LG character is a literal paladin (that is, a palace knight) he may in fact have the lawful authority vested in him to take down an evil baron, although he would prefer an orderly arrest and trial to outright killing.


Although I personally think that Chaoticness is more on the lines of "breaking the system" than "breaking the rules". The Chaotic guy is not the guy who doesn't pay his taxes. He's the guy who robs the taxmen; gives the money back to the community if he's CG, keeps it for himself if he's CN, kills the guards while he's at it if he's CE.

Breaking or leaving the system altogether (the classic woodsman). More risk-averse chaotics will simply follow the law when there is an obvious and immediate penalty for failing to (a cop behind them while driving), but the motive there is to not get pulled over and ticketed, not to follow the law.

If it was a form of civil disobedience, I'd consider not paying taxes to be a Lawful action (Thoreau). Otherwise it could be anything.


Notice that the new alignment rules seem to indicate that this will be more clearly defined. You're not chaotic unless you're REALLY Chaotic. Stealing for a living (or for profit) is not Chaotic, with a capital C. Stealing entire kingdoms treasuries to cause the downfall of entire systems of government might be Chaotic.

I'm warming up to this idea. One of the most confusing alignments was Neutral, which could mean just about anything. "Unaligned" really does describe most people and really most creatures: You go along to get along. Alignment as a sort of heroic designation makes it clearer and more significant. Anyone with an alignment is likely to be an exemplar of that alignment, which removes a lot of the mushiness in the old definitions.


On the other hand, mere townguards will cease to be capital-L Lawful. Someone who goes out in the wild to try to "educate" a tribe of nomads on the virtues of established codes is Lawful. A guy who devotes himself to hunting down renegades and making them pay for their crimes, too.

I quote Cracker:

"The chief of police kept the crime off the street
But deep in his heart we all knew he felt differently.
We all knew he was an anarchist."

Sometimes you're a lawman because you believe in the law. Sometimes, it's what puts food on the table.

BobTheDog
2007-12-19, 06:41 PM
I quote Cracker:

"The chief of police kept the crime off the street
But deep in his heart we all knew he felt differently.
We all knew he was an anarchist."

Sometimes you're a lawman because you believe in the law. Sometimes, it's what puts food on the table.

That quote is missing a line about "sniffing pixie dust". :smallbiggrin:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-19, 07:16 PM
The alignment system as it stands is irreconcilably broken, primarily because Law and Chaos are not opposites. Law and Lawlessness (Anararchy would probably be, inaccurately, used for this) are opposites, Chaos and Order are opposites. A system with two many laws wil fall into Chaos, a system with an immense amount of order will not. A person can not believe in Laws, but be very orderly. This is like a monk. He has great training and discipline, but does not necessarily follow laws, especially not mortal ones. The Bard is Chaotic, but not necessarily lawless; he can be a courtier or what-have-you, but he's the "air-headed musician" type. Both are stupid stereotypes of musciians or monks, but in a system that lists entire species as "usually X," you're going to find a lot of dumb stereotypes.

The Extinguisher
2007-12-19, 07:20 PM
I've always hate dthe term 'Lawful' as it impies to much. 'Orderly' is much more useful.

Lawful does not mean following authority, adhering to laws, etc. A lawful person is someone who is structured, follows routines and believes in patterns. In general. You can play it different ways.

A chaotic good person may respect and follow a legitimate authority, but they won't stand for corruption or anyone abusing they're powers

A lawful evil politicion may find himself breaking many laws, however he continues breaking those laws to increase his position in society.

Too say that lawful means follow authority and chaotic means don't is to ignore a great deal of the alignment.