Alignment System

[WarlockLord]

Is the alignmnet system a good system, or should good and evil be based entirely on character perceptions? (I'll post my opinion later).

 

[Aus_Snow]

Is the alignmnet system a good system, or should good and evil be based entirely on character perceptions? (I'll post my opinion later).

Alignment is not just about Good and Evil though, of course. Therefore, I can't really vote on the poll: it doesn't provide an option that makes enough sense, to my mind (in the context of your post).

 

[blargney the second]

My enjoyment of it comes and goes. Right now I like it. In a potential non-coincidence, I'm also interested in the Chaos-Law axis right now.

 

[Crothian]

Is the alignmnet system a good system, or should good and evil be based entirely on character perceptions? (I'll post my opinion later).

I'd call it fine, not good or evil

I think it can work as is it just needs a few more pages of details so people can easily understand it.

If we base it off of people's perceptions we'll have CE paladins whose players swear that what the character is doing they see as good.

 

[Skyman]

I don't like the alignment system. I think it simplifies things too much and is restrictive.

I much prefer descriptors for games that have supernatural 'good and evil'. A mean, petty thief would not have the Evil descriptor, but a vile psycho murderer or a demon would. Abilities like 'smite evil' work only against such things. Of course such abilities and spells would need to be boosted up to compensate for the fact that their targets are rarer.

As a side note, I like the idea of rather cruel, evil folk with 'holy' powers. A knight who can smite a demon but will easily put commoners to the sword to find a heretic appeals to me... but then I'm a Warhammer fan.

 

[WarlockLord]

What I mean is: should good & evil be metaphysical absolutes, backed by an array of otherworldly powers, or not?

 

[Aus_Snow]

What I mean is: should good & evil be metaphysical absolutes, backed by an array of otherworldly powers, or not?

Well, to that question: Yes. I think D&D is served well enough with that setup. Also, Law and Chaos should be treated in like kind.

If anything, I favour a more extreme interpretation of alignment in D&D. More literal, more internally consistent. Stuff like that.

 

[EditorBFG]

I tackled the alignment system in some detail with this product:
FANTASY FOLIO: Allegiances


Short answer, I think alignment is a useful abstraction, but requires a more open, meaningful system. The entirely new system presented in the product I wrote was designed to mesh seamlessly with any game, but I think it solves the alignment problem and makes things a lot more concrete.

(And if you check out the product, before you take the rating given into account, note that it comes from a single review, and read that review before you decide if it can be taken seriously in any way.)

 

[Turanil]

I much prefer the Allegiance system (d20 M), which can encompass alignments, as a character can have up to 3 allegiances (non-conflicting of course), and these can include Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. In this system, outsiders always have the allegiance appropriate to the plane they come from. However, mortals can be indifferent to that.

 

[el-remmen]

Is the alignment system a good system, or should good and evil be based entirely on character perceptions? (I'll post my opinion later).

I choose both. I like it, and good and evil is based on character perception.