Beyond good and evil

[RobNJ]

I was reading Monte Cook's (excellent) article "How dark do you dare?" (that may not be the exact title) in the latest Dragon Magazine, and it got me thinking about the role of alignment in the game. I've always hated it , and I think for my next campaign I might do away with it. But I figured I'd put it to you folks:

How much of a role do you think alignment plays in balanacing the character classes? Barbarians, bards, druids, monks and paladins are the only core classes (I can think of) with alignment restrictions. Do you think that it really hurts the other classes if there were just no such thing as alignment?

There would have to be some changes, of course. Detect Evil would have to be more like, "Detect Infidel," and the DM would have to decide whether the target would be a sinner in the eyes of the paladin/cleric/what have you.

What do you think? Is it unbalancing, and what changes would have to be made? I suspect a lot of things would have to be role playing controlled, where the DM would say, "Your monk is not being role played as being a focused, self-controlled guy, so you're in danger of becoming an ex-monk."

 

[TiQuinn]

IMO, Alignments are a mechanic of convenience. I use them when it's convenient to do so, like when the party cleric uses protection from evil against a group of orcs. I'm not going to say, "Well....actually these orcs aren't REALLY evil. You're just encroaching on their land in a threatening manner. You're spell doesn't work against them." In this instance, looking up that orcs are usually Chaotic Evil works just fine.

For the rest of the party, I don't want them to agonize over the actions of their characters. It's not worthwhile to browbeat PCs about their characters actions with alignment. Even if they do do something that I think is outside their alignment, what am I going to do? Penalize them a level? This is where alignment as a game mechanic fails.

Alignment is not a straightjacket. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

 

[RobNJ]

What do you think? Is it unbalancing, and what changes would have to be made?

I think I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be in retrospect. Despite the poll, what I'm most interested in is how to balance a decision I've already made. Commentary on other parts of this debate is welcomed of course, but I'd love it if anyone could suggest what tinkering needs to be done to remove alignment altogether.

For example, I've learned that Sovreign Stone Press's campaign world is alignmentless. Anyone know what they did to the rules as a result?

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Alignment is not a straightjacket. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Agreed- I even tell my players that they should be considering the impact the adventures are having on their characters over the long term. Such hardship has to have an impact on their pc's person- either reinforcing their beliefs or challenging them. I allow alignment change when it makes sense for the character.

Also- I still use tendencies.

FD

 

[Piratecat]

Alignment languages, baby - it's all about the alignment languages. "I speak to him in Lawful Good."

 

[Donatello]

I think alignments are somewhat important, but as TiQuinn said, they're more for convenience.

Evil is evil, good is good. That's the easy axis.

Lawful and Chaotic has always been a point of debate among my players, but we hashed it out pretty well.

I like alignment restrictions on classes/PrC's. True Neutral Paladins? Chaotic Evil Monks? Lawful Good assassins? Chaotic Good Blackguards? All of this just makes no sense to me. Sure sure, the alignment system isn't perfect, but it's better than trying to come up with something else.

 

[alsih2o]

being as good and evil, law and chaos are such wide notions it seems to me that maybe a 2 digit # would be better suited for describing character sympathies.

0-9, with absolute law being 0, and absolute chaos being 9

0-9, with absolute good being 0 and absolute evil being 9

maybe limit 0's and 9's to extraplanar beings? so, a palading could be from an 1.1 to a 2.2, including 1.2 and 2.1. heck, i could even see certain paladins being 1.3 or 3.1, waver in to the land of 3.2 and get a wake up call from your church or god

so true neutrals would be 5.5 yada yada i am sure you can figure the rest without me holding your hand.

this isn't a system i use, and isn't completely thought out. i just thought of it when i saw the thread and threw it out. any comment?

 

[alsih2o]

oh, and instead of alignment restrictions on a party you could instead pass things like "your #'s cannot add up to more than 7 when combined" giving what may be more lattitude, for party interest

 

[Remathilis]

I'm working on a series of adventures that deal with with the war between Law and Chaos. Good and Evil get overrated so much, time to shake things up.

On the whole, Alignments are a Two-word way of telling me how you plan to play your PC. I think its akin to the "Nature/Demeanor" system of White Wolf (where morality is dubious at best) D&D is more hero/villian based, so I think it works well when used as a guideline.

"Action dictates alignment, not the other way around"

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Lawful and Chaotic has always been a point of debate among my players, but we hashed it out pretty well.

What was your groups conclusion?

My group looks at it as means- chaotic believes the ends justify the means, and lawful believes the ends never justify the means.

FD