Alternative alignments

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I'm not so much a fan of the six alignment system but since I'm starting a new game with brand-new players I want to give them some sort of guideline. Especially when roleplaying with the world's societies, since judicial ideologies will play a part in the campaign.

I'm not that familar with systems outside DnD, so I was just wondering if anybody has come up with an interesting way to deal with alignments?

 

[AngryMojo]

I'm not that familar with systems outside DnD, so I was just wondering if anybody has come up with an interesting way to deal with alignments?

Completely ignore them. That's my best advice. Alignment has absolutely no mechanical effect, and most RPG's simply don't have it. If you or any members of your group are struggling with the concept of alignment, just jot down "unaligned," roleplay everything as makes sense for the situation, and call it a day.

 

[doctorhook]

Completely ignore them. That's my best advice. Alignment has absolutely no mechanical effect, and most RPG's simply don't have it. If you or any members of your group are struggling with the concept of alignment, just jot down "unaligned," roleplay everything as makes sense for the situation, and call it a day.

QFT. I've gotta say, "Unaligned" is probably the greatest invention in alignment, ever. It's simple to understand, it coexists with other alignments, and it lets each player decided for themselves if they even want to have an alignment at all. If I ever go back to the ol' nine-alignment system, I'll add Unaligned to my game as a kind of "Neutral-Lite".

 

[Krensky]

The only one I'm familiar with is Fantasy Craft where you have4 to explicitly purchase it as an interest and it represents dedication to said alignment. While the traditional nine are possible, the game presents alignments as faiths, not philosophies. Your alignment is typical to a specific god, religion, etc. It's also something that is only critical to those with divine magic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, AD&D-3.5Ed D&D had a 9 alignment system (which I prefer to its current incarnation). Were I ever to run 4Ed, I'd strip down its alignment system to G-U-E while simultaneously reviving its status as a meaningful force in the D&D universe. (Meaningful alignment was one thing that I always liked about D&D as opposed to other FRPGs...it helped give D&D a unique identity.)

Palladium RPG/RIFTS has a system that lies somewhere between AD&D's and 4Eds, and actually has something similar to "Unaligned."

 

[Remathilis]

Basic B/X and BECMI D&D only had three: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Lawful meant you sided with society, typically for the betterment of mankind. Chaotic meant you favored the individual, often yourself, and could range from selfish but respectable to outright evil and cruel. (Monsters typically fell in the latter category). In between was neutral; who chose not to take sides or militantly opposed both the strictness of law and the anarchy of chaos.

 

[Verdande]

I usually only use Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral, and that's only because my games have a strong Moorcockian flavor and I like the idea that all of the gods are sort of detached from humanity. Sure, the Lawful gods can be nice guys, but they're not on your side, really. You can be on theirs, and they'll support you, but if you turn against them, they'll have nothing to do with you. And the same with Chaos.

Neutrality means you haven't picked a side, and is where most people lie. It's more of an alleigance to one side of the Balance or other, and most people aren't even aware of the Cosmic Struggle, so they're Neutral.

If I'm not running a game with Moorcock's influence, I ditch alignment. It doesn't resolve anything, and is purely a mechanical construct. No other games use it, which is a pretty good sign that it's been judged and found wanting.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Hmm, thanks for the advise guys. I'm not looking at them for mechanical purposes though, it's more of a guideline so that the players can play characters with some focus and not flip-flop all over the place.

I think I might just have to create some loose ideological text for them instead though.

 

[steenan]

Any system that classifies characters into a few categories and presents it as a moral dimension is likely to create problems.

If you want a tool that will help roleplaying, not something to just divide between allies and enemies, it's much better to use a more personalized approach, one that does not attach a value to how the character is described. On the other hand, to be really helpful, the description needs to be much more concrete than the abstract dimensions of classic D&D alignment.

A sample system, one that I'm using, looks like that:

Each character has several Goals, Attachments, Taboos and Ideals (2 to 5 of each seems good). A goal is something the character wants to achieve ("avenge the death of my brother", "find a legendary treasure"). An attachment is a person or group she cares about ("my family", "a priest who saved my life"). A taboo is something she'd rather not do ("I never lie", "I never ignore an opportunity to get rich"). An ideal is an abstract value she follows ("honor", "respect for life"). As a character evolves during a campaign, a player may add, remove or change one of these after each session (drastic events may call for bigger changes).

Just the description may be enough. You may also tie it to the game mechanics. Here are several ideas on how it may be done - choose one or combine several of them.
1. A small bonus to each action that follows a goal, attachment, taboo or ideal; small penalty to each action that goes against them.
2. A significant bonus to saving throws and social rolls if someone tries to force, manipulate or persuade the character to act against his goal, attachment, taboo or ideal (eg. to betray someone he cares about); significant penalty when someone tries to manipulate the character into following one of them (eg. a BBEG asking a character with "never refuse surrender" taboo to spare his life, even as he knows he shouldn't trust the bad guy).
3. Give an action point or similar resource every time a character takes a significant risk or otherwise puts himself at a disadvantage to follow his goal, attachment, taboo or ideal. You may do it like with aspects in Fate: eg. the GM makes an offer "I'll give you an AP if you follow your 'Charity' ideal and help these villagers without demanding payment"

Hope it helps.

 

[Nadaka]

d20 modern handles this with the allegiance system.

Basically, you can choose up to three things you want to ally yourself with.

This can be any of the alignments, a nation, a family, an organization, a person, an object, an ideal, a god etc.

When interacting with people who share the same allegiance, you get a bonus to certain social skills. Some advanced and prestige classes may require specific allegiances as prerequisites. You can change your allegiances if you like, they are not fixed.

Examples:
money, power and the republican party
family, justice and the FBI
Good, piety and Jesus
attractive women, parties and fast cars
None
Order
Chaos
Violence
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Colt M1911 best gun ever made