I’m going to come out of the closet here and admit that I am a fan of the classic D&D alignment system. Maybe fan is a strong word, but I certainly never felt a strong dislike for it. While some see it as restrictive, I see it as a good framework for a character’s basic moral compass and behavior. In real life, I wouldn’t steal, because I think it’s reprehensible. My real-life alignment wouldn’t let me do it, and neither should my PC’s in game alignment if it sways that way. But I’ve digressed from the original intent of this post, which is the (lack of) alignment system in 4e.
In 4e, alignment exists as nothing more than some flavor for the pc’s to sort of, kind of, maybe guide his actions. It allows you to worship certain deities, and pick up a feat or two for the worship of that deity. I think that’s about the usefulness of alignment. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not a rules lawyer, nor a PC, so I could be wrong. But I think that’s the extent of crunch as far as alignment is concerned. Not much really, in the large scheme of things. So why have it at all? My gut tells me that alignment is a sacred cow they couldn’t really kill. Kind of like the necessity of having 6 ability scores and Magic Missile.
So let’s say you as a DM have a player that is clearly not following his original alignment choice in the way he behaves in your game. What are you to do? Well, the game really doesn’t offer a lot of options. You can warn him, reminding him that he’s not acting per his choice. But so what? Mechanically, what does that mean? At most, you can force him (upon his next leveling up) to retrain one of the divinity feats tied to a particular deity if his worship of that deity doesn’t jive with his actions. That’s about it.
I believe more can be done with the alignment system, beyond what the designers of the game have done, which was basically to neuter the system to the point of near-irrelevance. I think, however, that there is a potential to introduce mechanical uses for alignment that don’t necessarily restrict the PC, or punish him, but rather rewards the player for following his alignment choice at the time of character creation. Simply put, make alignment a keyword in the exception based design of 4e.
Powers
Why can’t certain classes include powers in their repertoire that are dependent on a PC being of, and acting, within a certain alignment? Obviously clerics and paladins come to mind. Powers are picked by players, they aren’t assigned, so why not reward players that stick and act to their alignment with some neat powers that are only available to a particular alignment? You choose to be neutral, cleric? Sorry, you don’t have access to “Pelor’s Guiding Light”, or whatever. You get the point. That’s certainly not a game breaker.
Boons
The DMG2 introduced boons to the game, and these work mechanically like magical items do. So why not have boons that are only available per alignment. Again, you aren’t forcing PC’s to act a certain way, but rather rewarding those that choose to and you as a dm feel they deserve it. Not having access to a boon because you choose to play a certain alignment isn’t a punishment, or restrictive to players, but rather a reward.
Items
Perhaps some magical items or artifacts can be tied to a particular alignment. Why not? A lawful good dwarven cleric knows that there is a weapon called “Moradin’s F**k-You-Up Hammer”, but alas, it’ll only make itself accessible to Lawful Good clerics, and the artifact’s concordance varies based on the DM’s assessment of how the character’s alignment is being played.
In closing… what I’m suggesting is that the alignment system as presented in 4e doesn’t need to be as abstract as it is, nor should it be a system that puts a straitjacket on players and their actions. Rather, it should be a mechanical part of the game that rewards or encourages players to abide by the alignment choice they made at character creation, without it being a necessary part of the game. You don’t need those powers offered to a particular alignment, but if you do choose it, they are nice to have.
This rant was born this afternoon on twitter, after complaining about some of my players not playing to their alignment, and I figured I should write a post about it. I’d love to hear why I’m wrong and alignment sucks, even if what I’m suggesting is not really a hindrance to players. 🙂
This post reminds me that I need to align my Corolla, it's shaking like a leaf.
www. Newbie DM .com 
Exedore6
January 7, 2010
You keep claiming that 4e’s designers neutered alignment. What prior edition had alignment with teeth (where there was something mechanical tha would punish the player who deviated from their code).
That said, I’m a fan of alignment, and a character’s alignment (and behavior compared to that alignment) should play a huge part in how the characters are treated.
The changes I see in 4e have more to do with eliminating alignments that to me seemed crazy (specifically lawful evil and chaotic good). How were these different from Neutral Good and Neutral Evil back in the old days?
I’d totally have divine folks be bound to their alignment, but I can’t see a justifiaction for anyone else.
Michael
January 7, 2010
I like your ideas. Probably because of my experience with AD&D and 3e and things like Circle of Protection and Holy Swords that a PC could only wield if he or she was Lawful Good.
Here’s something to stretch your mind a bit, though. Alignment is, as you’ve noted, basically fluff in 4e. So are the PC’s: height, weight, eye color, age, name, family, friends and everything else not specifically and immediately in-game-action-oriented.
newbiedm
January 7, 2010
@exedore: Well, in AD&D 1e, the Player’s Handbook mentions how hard it is to change alignment, and even suggests a quest may be needed or something of that sort. While in 2e for example, there was an XP penalty to alignment change. (page 28, DMG AD&D 2e Edition). So yeah, alignment with teeth as you put it has a history in D&D, but I’m not calling for that type of punishment or drastic measures. What I’m suggesting is that if a player chooses to follow a certain alignment, and the DM feels that he is, then he opens himself up to receiving certain rewards in the form of what I wrote above. It’s kind of the reverse of what those previous editions did.
@digitaldraco: I get that, but if once upon a time it mattered, why not throw it the proverbial bone and make it somewhat relevant again, even if slightly less so?
Scott
January 7, 2010
Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a PC is behaving in a way different from their original stated alignment, you should consider changing their alignment to match their actions. As the DM, you cede to the players certain things, and among those is the majority of the creative control of any given PC. You get to control the game world and the overall story, but the players get to control their characters. As such, it’s not really possible for them to have their character act in a way that character “wouldn’t” – the player is the ultimate authority in what his or her character would or would not do.
newbiedm
January 7, 2010
For the record, I’m not asking the players to grant me control of their pc’s or for me to determine how they act. I’m just suggesting that there’s a way to offer those players that play their chosen alignement (rather than ignoring it on their character sheet) a small in-game reward in the form of those things described above.
Darius Whiteplume
January 7, 2010
My biggest problem as a player is that the whole party says “we’re unaligned” to justify everything. My cleric went from unaligned to good, to lawful good in an attempt to bring structure.
The good thing about unaligned, though, is that people want to play evil, but so few want to admit their character is evil. Unaligned is like Hooters for guys who won’t go to strip clubs.
In a way, I agree alignment is a sacred cow and has little rules based place, and it really never has.
mthomas768
January 7, 2010
1st edition also had teeth to alignment. An alignment change cost you a level of XP, along with all associated benefits.
Lady Morgan
January 7, 2010
@Dorius, I understand your frustration with that. 1st and 2nd editions had the same problem with Chaotic Neutral in my experience. Worse, sometimes, if there were goodly types among the party, and they’d be problematic rather than cooperative for the sake of their fun. And they’d proudly say, “Well, I’m Chaotic Neutral” like it made them a special snowflake or something.
Would Moradin still guide a Lawful Good cleric who would not heal members of his party, though? I doubt it. And that’s what I miss of the way it used to be as there are players who will play the way they want regardless of their alignment, and when you get into the divine classes I feel that’s especially problematic.
However, as I am writing this, another thing occurs to me, perhaps this could be handled in RP and give the character some illness or something for offending their god, have it happen when they pray that they find themselves standing at a forge, and there’s a great dwarf in shining armor before him, in the case of Moradin. He slams his hammer on the anvil before you and suddenly the cleric doubles over in pain. “Dishonor me again and worse will happen,” he warns.
I don’t know. I’m not a DM. If I were, I’d handle that in an away from the table RP session, then come back to the table and inform the party, if they were in the same room, “Your cleric, who was praying, suddenly clutches his [afflicted body part or area] and doubles over in pain/falls unconscious” Something to that affect.
My two copper. *shrug*
Darius Whiteplume
January 7, 2010
CN was arguably the nastiest of alignments in many ways…
While I play LG, I am not overt about it. My cleric is a dragonborn who worships the Raven Queen. I took the Restless Dead background, so I thought LG worked as he would be disciplined and an avowed undead hater.
In the game I DM I believe everyone is unaligned, but they tend to play good. I don’t mind unaligned, as a rule, but everyone wants to be the anti-hero Wolverine-type… It gets tired after a while 🙂
Jas
January 7, 2010
I will say that, in my games, I tend to begin the character creation process by telling the players that they are already heroes at level 1 – in ability and in strength of character. I allow no Evil or Chaotic Evil aligned player characters, and if one slips in that direction, I will warn them that they run the risk of their character becoming an NPC.
And Unaligned is fine, so long as you enforce it. If Unaligned is secret wink-wink for Evil but Ashamed to Admit It, and their actions aren’t balanced, then I’ll start warning them about it. More often than not, however, the Unaligned characters are actually in danger of becoming Good against their will. Must be my players…
Dave
January 7, 2010
I especially like newbiedm’s idea of alignment-based boons. If my players were interested, I’d take it one step further combine that idea with the way that artifacts work. Think about this: the local black smith and the PC paladin might both be Lawful Good, but there’s still difference–the paladin LIVES for his beliefs, so his “alignment boon” would have a high concordance value.
My idea is to give every PC the option of selecting an “alignment boon” when they create their characters. The usefulness of the boon will improve, dissipate, or stay the same depending on how well they act their alignment. The rules for this are exactly the same as for artifacts.
JD Cash
January 7, 2010
I am a little confused. It has been stated that a level was lost for changing the alignment in older editions. That seems different than the issue of not role playing a chosen alignment. Am I misunderstanding the depiction of the old rule?
Anyway, I think it is difficult to measure when someone is role playing their character correctly or incorrectly based on alignment for this reason. Having morales and adhering to them are different qualities. I know ( and I am guessing we all know) good people who make bad choices consistently. Sometimes, the easier road prevails, whether or not it is viewed as the “right” road. Additionally, even the most principled people sometimes make choices that are not in line with their principles.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of alignment having real value. But this could be reduced to a difference of opinion between player and DM about how to role play an alignment properly and perceptions of player x was given the alignment bonus yet to be named and I wasn’t so the DM is playing favorites.
Daniel M. Perez
January 8, 2010
To me, if a stat doesn’t have mechanical effect, it doesn’t belong on the character sheet. So yeah, add mechanical relevance to Alignment or drop it. I like the ways you suggest, btw.
by_the_sword
January 8, 2010
In older editions, Alignment represented cosmic forces that were at work in the universe/multiverse Good, evil, law, chaos and neutrality (balance) Now a character’s alignment is a personal matter it is a tool for the player to help determine how his or her character will act. 1st edition did indeed recommend docking a player 1 level for changing alignment to reflect the “inner turmoil” that the character felt. Alignment in those days was a relegion unto itself and in meta-game terms, it was a stick that the DM could use against a player to get them to do or not do at the adventure required. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard a DM tell a player, “No you can’t do that because it’s against your alignment” only to sudden;y change the offender’s alignment to “Chaotic evil” and dock him a level and then proceed to ream that character in game with all sorts of unpleasant consequences. Granted, some players were just being idiots, many folks got wise to the DM’s tricks and made Chaotic-stupid-err-neutral their default alignment, and eventually we all came to the realization that if a player was going to act like an idiot: just kick him out of the game.
I have no problem with keeping elements of the old alignment system. Cosmic forces vying for dominance… or balance is a great backdrop to a campaign. But I also believe that a palyer should have a say in the way his character acts (Remember; chaotic-stupid gets the boot!). Maybe there should be two orders of alignment, one would be the cosmic forces (good/evil/law/chaos/balance) and another would be “Unaligned” where a player who didn’t want to get involved in the grand scheme of things can just go about his business. Thus we can have paladins, clerics, demons, slaadi, daemodands, ect who would be working for an alignment force in question and other characters who would only choose sides if they wanted to or were forced to in game.
I strongly recommend that people read Michael Moorcocks “Elric of Melniboné books to see where some of the ideas on alignment actually came from. In these stories Law, Chaos and Balance fought for dominance in the world but most people were really ‘unaligned’ and just wanted to live their lives. The hero Elric, was aligned with Chaos mostly due to his family history (the royal family he came from worshipped the gods of chaos and had many pacts with them) but her was really a decent guy in the beginning. He was drawn into the cosmic struggle and even though he was on the Chaotic side and committed many foul deeds, he was remorseful and sought to aid the forced of Balance in the end. There so much more to the saga than that but I just wanted to use it as an example of how alignment could play out and also to illustrate a story that actually influenced the D&D alignment system.
Kindelias Shadowoul
January 8, 2010
@LadyMorgan- “special snowflake” is just outstanding because it’s so damn true and your suggestion of having the offending player’s god bestow some malady is pretty amusing.
Let me start by saying that alignment has always been one of those vague items on the character sheet that could be done away with and only those that play Paladins regularly would even notice, mostly because it’s so subjective that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. My biggest problem with giving alignment more teeth is that it leaves yet another thing for the DM to rule on and to give him the ability to exact some measure of control over my character. I mean the gray area between Good, Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Unaligned is so open to interpretation that it would take away from the fun of the game to have to validate my actions any time the DM rules that I’m crossing the “alignment line”. Having said that, I have always thought that alignment is fluff, with one maybe 2 exceptions and that would be when playing a Lawful Good character. Ultimately, this is the easiest alignment to rule on because of the nature of the alignment. My take has always been that these guys run into battle against their better judgment and with no regard to their own safety or survival and attack the biggest/baddest thing on the map and that they possess a certain inherent inflexibility for breaking ANY rules and their need to not only do the righteous thing but that their lives end in martyrdom. Anyways, I do recall an instance when a particularly nitpitcking DM ruled an alignment change and the player was “downgraded” from Paladin to fighter because the Paladin had not acted in accordance to what the DM’s criteria for Lawful Good was. So with something like that I can see alignment actually being relevant, but that’s about it. By the way, that totally sucked for the guy, but whatever. The only other time I can remember alignment even coming into the discussion is more of a generalized concept that any character that knowingly used poisons was on the road to evil. I recall several instances when the aforementioned DM would take the time to remind us that we were turning evil as a result of dipping our arrows in poison or whatnot. Ultimately, I don’t recall any penalties for it so like I said before, fluff.
Michael
January 9, 2010
Daniel Perez: I disagree. If we take your suggestion, then as I said above, the PC’s age, height, name and so forth should be done away with, too. And then you’re playing an immortal, formless entity with no identity that exists only to kill things.
The fluff belongs on the character sheet because it gives context to the other stats. Unless, of course, you’re just playing the game to kill stuff.
by_the_sword
January 9, 2010
Michael:
Many other games, fantasy RP and otherwise got along just fine without an alignment system. Even ones made by Wizards of the Coast and TSR. Most “alignments” in D&D are actually a burden that a player voluntarily takes on i.e. I agree to abide by the Lawful Good code of ethics in exchange for the paladin’s powers so I can enforce and defend that code. There were significantly less Lawful Good Fighters than there were Paldins and Clerics with that alignment for that very reason.
The problem with having “teeth” in your alignment system is that the ethics of alignment is subject to the whim of the DM and if you get a DM who’s views on Law and/or Goodness differs significantly with that of the party then you are going to have a crappy game experience.
by_the_sword
January 9, 2010
I would also like to add that alignment is a great aid to role playing, so I am not for discontinuing it’s use altogether. My beef with the old Alignment system was that it represented cosmic forces that were at odds with each other and that it was forced on a player like some sort of aggressive religion from the very inception of the Player Character. Give a Player a choice as to whether or not they want to take part in the grand battle and you will have a much happier player base.
newbiedm
January 9, 2010
@by the sword: That last comment is the point I’m trying to make. Give players a choice. What I’m proposing is that players who *choose* to play with an alignment system that they respect and try to play by are rewarded with access to stuff available to their alignment. I’m not punishing players who ignore or disregard alignment as they play their characters. There is no punishment involved, or holding anyone back, or restricting anything… only rewards.
N0Man
January 12, 2010
The problem with alignment in previous editions is the extreme subjectivity and misunderstanding involved.
Chaotic Good, True Neutral, and Lawful Evil were the 3 most misunderstood and confused alignments in the game. I see them still as existing under the umbrellas of Good, Unaligned/Neutral, and Evil.
The subjectivity has another problem, in that when punishment and mechanics are attached to alignment, then it leads to potential debates on what is truly evil or good, and sometimes both players and DMs alike have some wacky interpretations on this subject.
For example, a player might show mercy to a villain and allow him to live, and a DM might rule this an evil action because it allows the villain to commit further evils down the road. This is something I’ve actually heard come up, and it can be frustrating to have alignment penalties imposed on you because you are ruled to have done an evil action while you believed you were choosing a good action.
Getting people to agree on values has never worked in real life in thousands of years of civilization. It certainly isn’t going to happen in a few decades of roleplaying games.
Ryu
January 13, 2010
“The problem I see is that alignment is simple and can be broad in definition, and requires a person extremely comfortable with social and psychological matters. You also need someone who, in real life, operates in a neutral manner as much as is humanly possible, which is EXTREMELY rare.”
“Most people will take offense when certain things are adjudicated to good or evil, because society has taught them otherwise. Hence why so many people are so nervous to tread on the idea of Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good. Funny thing is, most heroes in fiction are Chaotic Good, and most villains are Lawful Evil. We have simply been taught that the law is what it is because it is a system of keeping people ‘good’, and anyone who honestly thinks that, is DEAD WRONG. However, I won’t tread that path any further.”
“The simple truth is, good is best described as selflessness, a desire to help people without concern for one’s welless, among other things (not true selflessness, which I will never be convinced is humanly possible). Evil, in turn, is a bit harder, because an evil act is born of true selfishness, choosing to harm another to benefit oneself. However, it is different than chaotic, in that chaotic people may choose to ignore the harm that comes to others as a result of their actions, but do not necessarily directly harm others. That, of course, does not define chaotic, but it is part of it…”
“In fact, chaos is an improper term, as chaos implies randomness, thoughtlessness (whether because one does not think, or because something cannot think), and many attribute destruction to chaos. The better term is anarchy (which by definition is ‘without rule’), which does not have the connotations most people add to it. Anarchy is exactly that, actions without rule, meaning that the character acts without a code or an outside force guiding their actions. I had a Lawful character once who couldn’t give a damn what a secular/religious body thought of his actions, but he had a code (not even an honorable one) that determined how he reacted to certain situations.”
satyr
January 13, 2010
Newbiedm, I think the idea of institutional rewards for players who “live their alignment” is neat on paper but might not work in an actual play group. Let’s take your example of boons, assuming a five-PC party with four good characters and one unaligned, and one of the good characters recently did something you think was nasty. Pelor hands out a boon granting an extra use of an encounter power in the next fight, but only to the three faithful good-aligned characters. How do the other two players at the table feel? Are they having a good time, or do they feel left out? Do they feel like they have a sympathetic DM, or do they feel like they’re being punished for good roleplaying (in the unaligned guy’s case) or for thinking outside the box (in the nominally good guy’s case)? Similarly, I would hate to lose access to a key power because it’s keyworded Good and my DM has a different interpretation of that alignment than I do. And while I agree that unaligned antiheroes are overdone, that’s no reason to deny them access to aligned powers and items. I think that _is_ a game-breaker; these players want to be just as much a part of the game world as characters who choose to align themselves.
I don’t understand why 4e kept a formal alignment system either, except maybe as a tool to get new players to think about their characters’ motives, but I do think the decision to remove alignment as a mechanical force was a good one. It can still be a powerful flavorful force, though!
streever
January 14, 2010
What weird perspectives 🙂
Alignment isn’t a stat, and I’m glad they finally separated it from the mechanics. It’s no different then height and weight: i.e. they’ll matter to some players and not to others.
As a DM, you can certainly punish, in game, people who break rules/break laws, regardless of alignment. However, if your entire party is behaving in a chaotic, lawless way, and it’s at odds with the campaign, I’d say the campaign needs retooling. Ask your players if they want to play as a band of merry thieves.