Alignment Inertia and Starting Alignment in Campaigns

[Jared Rascher]

I had kind of a theoretical thought about starting alignment recently, and I wanted to see what others thought of the idea. And as a preface, I'm kind of going with the idea the baseline is that, yes, alignment is being used in the campaign, so I'm kind of hoping to skip the "alignments are flawed/unrealistic/shouldn't be used" phase of the discussion.

My thoughts were, what if everyone started at neutral and worked their way towards their alignment. Anyone that had an alignment requirement would still start out with that alignment requirement in place, but only as much as needed to fulfill their requirement.

For example, a paladin would start out as lawful good. A monk would start out as lawful neutral. A cleric of a lawful good god would be lawful neutral or neutral good, but not lawful good, because its removed from neutral more than it needs to be to fulfill alignment requirements.

What would be the point of this? Avoiding alignment inertia. What is alignment inertia?

Alignment inertia is the state that a lot of characters end up in. The character is created as lawful good. The character never does anything to contradict that alignment, but never does much to support that alignment either. The GM really doesn't have a reason to hit the player character's alignment, but the character has never gone out of their way to put their alignment "to the test."

What does getting rid of alignment inertia do for a campaign? Well, first let me set up a scenario. The adventurers come to a critical point in a campaign, and only the virtuous can enter, or can pick up an artifact, or can kill the bound guardian of X. Everyone in the party is sure they are virtuous, because they are all good aligned, and they have never really done anything to challenge their alignment.

But at the same time, most of their careers they have killed evil monsters and taken their treasure. Its not an evil act, and they have removed the evil monsters from the world, but at the same time, they are adventurers . . . they look for trouble for the thrill of it, and they get treasure to boot.

If a player really wants their character to be that guy that everyone knows is a good guy, shouldn't they go out and feed the hungry, give back the pay they got from the temple for the undead they killed, or go out of their way to heal the sick and injured?

If the character starts out as neutral, and the player wants their character to be neutral good, or lawful good, isn't it better to say that, say, three significant acts in the campaign, not "off screen" or in the character's origin, should serve to establish a new alignment, divergent from neutral?

I know in a system like this, you do tend to invite a more mercenary mindset if the default alignment is neutral. I also would be concerned that players may feel less in control of their characters. But are these concerns greater than the benefits that a system like this might provide? I'm honestly interested to see what people think about this.

Thanks all!

 

[steenan]

I don't see any inherent problems in the system you propose, but I would prefer something else as a player. Your approach makes biggest difference for characters that are not dependent on alignment in any way, while it leaves as much "alignment inertia" as RAW for paladins and other fixed-alignment classes. I would rather like it to be the opposite.

When I put an alignment on my character sheet, it's a statement of who my character is and how I want to play him. It does not mean I want my GM to accept it and leave it as it is - quite the opposite. I expect her to question it and challenge it through in-game events. I want to be faced with hard choices where I may show who my character is and what he values. This way, I confirm my alignment, or I change it.

Your system works better with players that don't want their GM to challenge their alignments and prefer not to focus on this aspect of play. They'll see results of their actions on their alignments without being burdened by it. In your system it is more "growing into what one wants to play" then "falling from what one wants to play" - and this is very good.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I see your point, and I know as a player, I have made characters that I really want to hold certain views, and will push in that direction and make sure they are "active" with their alignment.

I do think that paladins, but virtue of having a code that is actually stricter than just being lawful good, will probably still have to be "active" with their alignment in a campaign, unless the GM is really trying to avoid conflict for them.

Most clerics will have some kind of code or moral issues that should come up at least once in a while. This goes for any divine class that worships a specific deity (inquisitors, and the like).

That just leaves monks, and not having to "prove" their lawfulness. I'll definitely grant you that I've seen lots of monks played as just "martial artists" and not particularly lawful in their outlook. Without going into that too deeply, I think that might be a flaw in the game that the spiritual philosophical martial artists is the only martial artist in the game at present.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I sent this idea to several current and former players of mine to see what they thought of the idea. I've actually been a little bit surprised that there hasn't been much hesitation at all. Still, its only been about three responses compared to 8 or so people whose opinions I solicited.