PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Modifying Alignment



Choco
2010-03-26, 03:37 PM
I noticed that alignment in 4e does not seem to be nearly as tied to mechanics as it was in previous editions, so was wondering what all I need to consider should I want to modify the alignment system.

I personally would like to scrap it altogether, which looks like it will be almost no effort at all, but there is also a guy in this group that is dead-set on recreating the 3.5 alignment system in 4e. The only places where alignment is tied directly into the rules are like limiting what paladins can serve what deities, at least from what I have seen. So basically, for either of those to be done, what do I have to watch out for?

Asbestos
2010-03-26, 03:46 PM
Are you seeking to have more alignment based restrictions? What's the reason? To mechanically maul players for acting outside their alignment?

nightwyrm
2010-03-26, 03:54 PM
Since it's not tied to mechanics, the 4e alignment system can easily be scrapped or replaced with another system. Bring back the nine point system, call true neutral unaligned and you're done. If you want, you go through the gods and reassign alignment to them, but since 4e paladins and clerics don't fall or anything, there's not a lot of point to it.

If your player wants to call himself LN, let him. It doesn't matter at all mechanically.

NMBLNG
2010-03-26, 03:59 PM
For no alignment:

Aside from paladins and maybe other divine classes, alignment has no mechanical effect. From a RP perspective, it does make sense that a Cleric of Pelor would be good, and a paladin of Asmodeus would be evil. Any discontinuity from players should be resolved with a deity shift, rather than an alignment shift.

For alignment effects:

You're on your own for this one. 4e makes it really easy to play a non-good party, as there are lot of traditionally good creatures in the Monster Manuals (Angels, elves, eladrin, etc). I would start with very small mechanical impacts and work from there. Perhaps +1 on social checks against those of similar alignment. Perhaps some monster powers that get extra effects against evil/good players.

Asbestos
2010-03-26, 04:03 PM
You're on your own for this one. 4e makes it really easy to play a non-good party, as there are lot of traditionally good creatures in the Monster Manuals (Angels, elves, eladrin, etc). I would start with very small mechanical impacts and work from there. Perhaps +1 on social checks against those of similar alignment. Perhaps some monster powers that get extra effects against evil/good players.
So long as alignment choice doesn't become part of making an optimal character.

Looking at you, Neutrals that just want to avoid the Protection/Magic Circle spells and Smites.

trmptfnfr
2010-03-26, 04:12 PM
Are you seeking to have more alignment based restrictions? What's the reason? To mechanically maul players for acting outside their alignment?

Maybe a preference for the old system?
You'll notice that it wasn't mentioned anywhere that he would put forth alignment limitations on abilities.

Choco
2010-03-26, 04:42 PM
What I want to do is just scrap it, the other guy wants to add mechanics around it. I think I win because mine takes no work :smallamused:

Also, if it is not tied to mechanics anyway there is no reason for it to be there. Like was said earlier, if someone wants to call themselves <insert alignment here> they can, but it will not have any effect on anything.

Asbestos
2010-03-26, 04:55 PM
Maybe a preference for the old system?
You'll notice that it wasn't mentioned anywhere that he would put forth alignment limitations on abilities.

True true, I was all geared up for an alignment thing...


I personally would like to scrap it altogether, which looks like it will be almost no effort at all, but there is also a guy in this group that is dead-set on recreating the 3.5 alignment system in 4e... So basically, for either of those to be done, what do I have to watch out for?

Well, since there is little to zero mechanical effect (there may be a couple of PPs or Epic Destinies that tie into alignment) then... you really don't have to watch out for anything. DM discretion all the way.


Btw, 'Unaligned' isn't really 'True Nuetral' its more like all the neutrals thrown together. Meanwhile 'Good' really encompasses NG and CG and 'Evil' encompasses LE and NE. The old alignment system is still basically there.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-26, 06:28 PM
I noticed that alignment in 4e does not seem to be nearly as tied to mechanics as it was in previous editions,
It is actually not at all tied to mechanics. So yeah, it's easy to replace by something else.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-26, 09:17 PM
Btw, 'Unaligned' isn't really 'True Nuetral' its more like all the neutrals thrown together. Meanwhile 'Good' really encompasses NG and CG and 'Evil' encompasses LE and NE. The old alignment system is still basically there.

I prefer to fit the entirety of the 'normal' parts of the old alignment system into unaligned. With it basically being anything other than 'Exalted/Saintly' or 'Vile'. Pretty much Good means directly aligned on a cosmic level with the self identifying 'Gods of Light and Happy Shiny Kitten Fluff' and Evil means that you have some kind of direct stake in the fortunes of the Moustache twirling, fiendish or otherwise abominable forces of Dark Ickyness.

Which is to say, I never mention alignment except for jokes as a DM, and I basically just write Unaligned on 95% of my characters and get on with actually roleplaying.

Given that you are DM, and it's only one player, I'm going to endorse your chosen course, pretty much. Alignment doesn't need to be mentioned at all, and adding in clunky homebrew to bring back the bad old style of it would be both a lot of work, and completely pointless. Also makes Kitten Jesus cry.

If all else fails, ask him what alignment he believes his character to be, make a little note, nod and say 'I see'. He has no way to discern the alignments of others (at all), so you are then free to just ignore the issue. Of course, you assure him that you are baring the alignment system in mind and the ramifications of it all. Oh, sure. Yes. All the NPC's have alignments, and there may well be cosmic ramifications from every single action.

Then promptly ignore the thing. Just don't admit you are doing so.

Asbestos
2010-03-26, 09:31 PM
It is actually not at all tied to mechanics. So yeah, it's easy to replace by something else.
Except that one or two Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies have alignment requirements ... and I think an odd artifact or two might be as well.

Its just 99% untied to mechanics.

Which really isn't a bad thing.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-03-26, 09:43 PM
I personally would like to scrap it altogether, which looks like it will be almost no effort at all, but there is also a guy in this group that is dead-set on recreating the 3.5 alignment system in 4e.
Let him write whatever he wants in his alignment entry, because it doesn't matter.



The only places where alignment is tied directly into the rules are like limiting what paladins can serve what deities, at least from what I have seen.
Not even. There are no rules-penalties for changing alignment; so in practice paladins and clerics can worship Tiamat and be LG or serve Pelor and be CE. (Their churches will probably ostracize and try to burn the heretic at the stake, but at least the heretic won't lose his power.)

So yeah, just ignore alignment if it makes you happy; and let players use whatever alignment makes them happy!

BobTheDog
2010-03-26, 10:02 PM
I think there are some magic items that are based on alignment. They work like "you get a +1 bonus to stuff, or a +2 bonus to stuff against chaotic evil creatures". Of course, that is also true for a lot of monster features (+1 to stuff or +2 to stuff against immortals).

Also, there's a "quick n dirty" way to tie alignment back. Take a look around and see what powers/feats/items are "aligned" and give them a slight edge against the opposite alignment.

Swordgleam
2010-03-26, 10:12 PM
If you want a lazy kind of alignment mechanic, just make all necrotic attacks evil and all radiant ones good. Anything with vulnerable radiant is already evil, anything with vulnerable necrotic is usually good.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-26, 10:20 PM
If you want a lazy kind of alignment mechanic, just make all necrotic attacks evil and all radiant ones good. Anything with vulnerable radiant is already evil, anything with vulnerable necrotic is usually good.

However, given that Radient damage is also the Elder Gods damage of choice, "Oh cruel stars!", that would send out some very confusing and mixed messages to the warlocks amongst us.

Swordgleam
2010-03-26, 10:25 PM
Forgot about that. Well, all divine radiant powers are good, then.

Evard
2010-03-26, 10:34 PM
Evil gods are still divine...

Kurald Galain
2010-03-27, 04:37 AM
Except that one or two Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies have alignment requirements ... and I think an odd artifact or two might be as well.
Oh yeah, forgot about those. Well, if you want to modify alignment, you can easily houserule that handfull.


If you want a lazy kind of alignment mechanic, just make all necrotic attacks evil and all radiant ones good. Anything with vulnerable radiant is already evil, anything with vulnerable necrotic is usually good.
I'm afraid that's not going to work. Radiant is one of the most arbitrary damage types in the book: aside from the elder gods above, several light-based wizard spells (e.g. Color Spray) also do radiant damage.

So radiant is (1) holy energy, (2) magic that involves bright lights, or (3) granted by the elder gods. Hm, someone could have designed that better :smallbiggrin:

On the other hand, anything with vulnerable/radiant is pretty much guaranteed to be a nasty abomination mockery of life (i.e. undead). That's not to say that all undead have vuln/radiant, because many of them have random other vulns instead. Vuln/necrotic I haven't seen around much, in practice.

Yakk
2010-03-27, 10:53 AM
You could also steal a page from non-D&D games.

Have players write down their Morality, their Motivation and their Temptation.

Players then 'give up' options (or suffer penalties, or do something stupid) dictated by the above in order to gain Action Points.

Swordgleam
2010-03-27, 10:55 AM
So radiant is (1) holy energy, (2) magic that involves bright lights, or (3) granted by the elder gods. Hm, someone could have designed that better :smallbiggrin:

That's why I modified it to be "divine radiant powers." I think that still only includes good stuff, though I might be missing things. Of course, that only covers one power source. But it's hard to get whole-heartedly into this when I agree with the OP's stance of just scrapping alignment. :smallyuk:

Guy
2010-03-27, 01:15 PM
Radiant energy, and the damage type that goes with it, is used for gods and stars. many Cosmic Sorc powers, Star Pact warlocks, and most of the Divine classes use it.

It's not Good or Evil.