As it stands, this will really come more into effect when the PC's hit their Paragon Path. But I think its going to come out to be a lot of fun.
So the question is, has anyone tried anything like this, and if so how did it work out? I realize that there are quit a few players out there that prefer no alignment system, and that's cool, but I thought that the Alignment change was one that took too much of the D&D feel out of D&D...
To a large degree, the Radiant damage type stands in for "Good power that damages Evil opponents" in 4E. So watch where you end up over-loading or over-complicating radiant powers (you may in fact be better off removing the Radiant damage type, replacing it with Good).
To a lesser degree, Necrotic is standing in for "Evil". Again watch for end results that mean that you tag almost all Necrotic types, and not much else, as Evil - if you do, then you simply aren't adding much to the game, for a lot of wasted effort.
I'd be quite interested in what you intend to tag as "Lawful" or "Chaotic" in 4E.
There are two parts to the alignment system that collide when you add mechanical benefits:
1) Declaring that a character is of alignment X, for character concept or build reasons
2) Assessing actions of characters and controlling their behaviour based on pre-declared alignment (or equally changing character alignment based on action)
It is (2) that drives thousands of arguments about alignment and appropriate behaviour. When there is a mechanical build reason for a character to have a particular alignment, this just doubles the pain.
Before you re-introduce alignments in your own group, you need to agree ground rules on how much of (1) and (2) you are bringing with you from 3.5. Even if you go for extreme policing of PC moral behaviour for them to keep their Lawful godo status, that's just fine if the group plays like that. The big arguments usually start with a surprise "But he's alignment X, so he wouldn't do that".
We have a bit going on about Black Guard. I have an issue with BG being Chaotic... they are part of a Knightly order after all. So for now (I'd love sugestions) I'm "requiring" anyone interested in being one, that they be some kind of Lawful. Lawful Good would be one heck of a story (Hey its a very high RP game-- could happen), but Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil certainly fit (Though I'm not allowing Evil PC's so sorta defeats that) ;)
I'd love some feed back or suggestions as far as this goes for Good Outsiders....
--
I have an issue with BG being Chaotic... they are part of a Knightly order after all.
The problem with this is that the exact same thing that makes one character chaotic makes another character lawful and vice versa. I seem to recall that in the 3.5 PHB one character was described as being lawful because they followed a personal code, while another character was described as being chaotic because they followed a personal code? This is what I mean about being too simplistic about alignment. Being part of a knightly order doesn't necessarily make a character lawful the same way that working for a government organization doesn't necessarily make me lawful. Characters, just like real people, are often more multi-dimensional than that. They can behave chaotically in some ways or in some circumstances while behaving lawfully in other ways or in other circumstances, and there isn't any contradiction in that.
I have an issue with BG being Chaotic... they are part of a Knightly order after all.
The problem with this is that the exact same thing that makes one character chaotic makes another character lawful and vice versa. I seem to recall that in the 3.5 PHB one character was described as being lawful because they followed a personal code, while another character was described as being chaotic because they followed a personal code? This is what I mean about being too simplistic about alignment. Being part of a knightly order doesn't necessarily make a character lawful the same way that working for a government organization doesn't necessarily make me lawful. Characters, just like real people, are often more multi-dimensional than that. They can behave chaotically in some ways or in some circumstances while behaving lawfully in other ways or in other circumstances, and there isn't any contradiction in that.
I understand your point. I'm using these as guidelines. Nothing will be hard and fast as far as actual roleplaying goes but the concepts are there.
Actually, now that I think about it, I can use what you said to this point: Perhaps these particular Angels, Demons, and Devils are perplexed that Humanity/Elf-kind/Dwarfs, etc. can and do fluxuate in loyalty and mannerisms aka alignment, yet they are held slavishly to them... hum.
D&D is not a game solely for children, and so it should't be restricted by such simplistic black and white perspectives of morality and ethics.
Because, of course, when your alignment choices are Really Good, Good, Meh, Evil, and Really Evil, you've got a vast palette of highly nuanced perspectives on morality and ethics to choose from.
Sarcasm aside, if your group has come to a consensus on alignment, use it and it'll probably be great. If your table is the sort that bickers about whether a paladin can kill the goblin orphans he just helped create, it's best to just ignore alignment all together.
D&D is not a game solely for children, and so it should't be restricted by such simplistic black and white perspectives of morality and ethics.
Because, of course, when your alignment choices are Really Good, Good, Meh, Evil, and Really Evil, you've got a vast palette of highly nuanced perspectives on morality and ethics to choose from.
Sarcasm aside, if your group has come to a consensus on alignment, use it and it'll probably be great. If your table is the sort that bickers about whether a paladin can kill the goblin orphans he just helped create, it's best to just ignore alignment all together.
4e's alignments are even worse than previous editions in that they tried to boil down character moralities to even fewer options.
But I think CC's point (which I agree with) is that they did away with alignment being a prereq for anything or having any real mechanical impact on the system at all. That is a good thing. I hated things like my bard not being able to lawful or my monk having to be lawful.
I think 4e should have down one or two things with alignment, use the old system (but have it make just as little impact) or just leave it completely open (which is how I tend to treat it anyway, even in the RPGA, I find few people will care/notice if I put my alignment down as "self-serving" or "rules lawyer".)
Definitely doesn't limit people, they just lumped all the good alignments into one "Good" category, all evil into one "Evil" category, and the neutrals into the "Unaligned". Works out well. And yeah, the simple fact that alignment doesn't matter is great, as it should be.
Ugh, the old alignment system was too much. Way to many break downs of good, evil, and unaligned. And half of them basically were the same thing, especially neutral. Honestly I'm with CC, 4e's alignment is one of the best things about it. You have good people, evil people, and unaligned who really not matter either way.
Definitely doesn't limit people, they just lumped all the good alignments into one "Good" category, all evil into one "Evil" category, and the neutrals into the "Unaligned". Works out well. And yeah, the simple fact that alignment doesn't matter is great, as it should be.
I would have litle it better if it was just Good, Unaligned, Evil, but they randomly threw in Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.
I can't see that its a problem if that's the way the group plays, it just requires them to agree a little on the alignment topic - where evidence on this board shows in general it's a divisive issue.
The issue for the OP is more of how to go about the homebrew work that would be required to re-introduce the 3.5 alignments and some of their mechanics to 4E.
The OP isn't asking whether "old school" alignments with mechanic effects are a good idea or not, he seems to have that covered.
I can't see that its a problem if that's the way the group plays, it just requires them to agree a little on the alignment topic - where evidence on this board shows in general it's a divisive issue.
The issue for the OP is more of how to go about the homebrew work that would be required to re-introduce the 3.5 alignments and some of their mechanics to 4E.
Bingo! Thank you. Hey, I understand there are those that don't care for alignment. But I and most of us in my group have been playing since the late '70's! So we are used to it. So any way, we are going with the Classic/3.0 version. I really wanted to see if anyone had any good suggestions for implementation. Anyway, I've stated some of the ideas we are going with. My game picks up tomorrow night so I'll let everyone know how it goes.
That said if one is going to re-introduce good and evil powers, what's to keep a neutral character from taking both, and laughing as the aligned members of the party take extra hits, and laughing as he dishes out boosted attacks vs. the monsters.
That said if one is going to re-introduce good and evil powers, what's to keep a neutral character from taking both, and laughing as the aligned members of the party take extra hits, and laughing as he dishes out boosted attacks vs. the monsters.
In v3.5 because a requirement for taking any decent Good tagged power requires you to declare a Good alignment. Maybe a few exceptions here and there (some Wizard spells in 3.5) for variety, or to underline something thematic - in 4E the Warlock becomes an interesting case, a lot of the fluff is somewhat edgy in terms of demonic contracts etc.
Generally I would advise that Neutral characters get to "opt out" of alignment-focussed vunerabilities and resistances for all practical purposes. That is simple enough to arrange, for instance if you allow un-houseruled versions of all the powers you alter.
The Powers may become rituals.. I'll have to see.
Ugh, the old alignment system was too much. Way to many break downs of good, evil, and unaligned. And half of them basically were the same thing, especially neutral. Honestly I'm with CC, 4e's alignment is one of the best things about it. You have good people, evil people, and unaligned who really not matter either way.
Definitely doesn't limit people, they just lumped all the good alignments into one "Good" category, all evil into one "Evil" category, and the neutrals into the "Unaligned". Works out well. And yeah, the simple fact that alignment doesn't matter is great, as it should be.
I would have litle it better if it was just Good, Unaligned, Evil, but they randomly threw in Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.
Agreed. I love that alignment has ceased to be a limiting game mechanic, but the "streamlining" of the alignment system made it even more simplistic and silly, as well as implying that "Lawful Good" is more Good than "Good" is, which pretty much throws out the entire concept of the (admittedly flawed) Law/Chaos axis.
In all my home games, we use the 3.x alignment system as a point of reference since everyone already understands it (everyone I game with is a 2e or 3e transplant). The lovely thing about the complete lack of game effect is that alignment can be used as a basic descriptive term, and if it doesn't affect the dice, nobody has to argue about it's application.
To an above poster, regarding direct damage type porting: Radiant->Good will work really well until the group encounters an entity from the Far Realm that burns them the the supernaturally destructive light of a far away, forgotten star. That application of the radiant damage type isn't as common as the "this was called positive energy in 3.0" version, but it does come up. Starlocks will be extra confused. Although if you're looking to port it anyway, it would be perfectly reasonable to rule that those types of radiant damage are Chaotic aligned, what with all the madness and tearing stuff apart that comes with them.
Starting with the classic Alignment Square with all of the original alignments and introducing Unaligned as the point to unite them all!
So if you want you can be Unaligned Good....you're neither Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic.
That doesn't mean you don't do that alignment stuff. You simply aren't restrained to that part of the alignment spectrum.
Of course you can still be the goody LawfulGood Pally.
Love chaos for is own sake?...Chaotic Unaligned...though you're fellow party member might say you're just unhinged...like they'd know
Hahahahaha!.... 
...Oh...was that me? 
4e's alignments are even worse than previous editions in that they tried to boil down character moralities to even fewer options.
But I think CC's point (which I agree with) is that they did away with alignment being a prereq for anything or having any real mechanical impact on the system at all. That is a good thing. I hated things like my bard not being able to lawful or my monk having to be lawful.
I think 4e should have down one or two things with alignment, use the old system (but have it make just as little impact) or just leave it completely open (which is how I tend to treat it anyway, even in the RPGA, I find few people will care/notice if I put my alignment down as "self-serving" or "rules lawyer".)
Absolutely incorrect.
The failing of the 9-point alignment system was in its attempts to be more precise than it could usefully be, resulting in it becoming a straightjacket. The current 5-point system is greatly improved due to its vaguery.
Erachima, I'm probably going to regret raising this point, since I regularly see you eat threads over arguments like this (and often win them), but that seems like your complaint about the old system is what people chose (incorrectly) to do with it, whereas the new system, because it isn't accurate enough to actually describe anything, is mostly ignored. By those assumptions, a system with no concept of alignment would be the only good one, right? The old system was a straitjacket, in my opinion, largely because there was so much rules interaction built on top of a hazy and poorly-defined frame. Alignment is a roleplaying tool, but developers of earlier editions had the idea to have it affect play directly in many situations. It does that poorly because the system is supposed to be vague. Any problem with alignment arguments that doesn't pertain to an actual game effect, such as just about anything involving 4e (cavalier etc excepted) is really just a case of players being petty and argumentative. If the system doesn't affect play, there's no need to hash out exactly what anyone's alignment should be called. The people were the problem, not the system.
All that said, my favorite way to have game effect from character personality is the WoD system's virtue/vice system. It gives rewards for roleplaying that are tangible but not overwhelming, and gives a sense of each character's personality, both the best and worse impulses, that's both more useful and more interesting than "my character is a nice guy who plays by the book, he's Lawful Good."