I hate alignment

[Woas]

If you don't have alignments, how would Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil work? What would be the point of having Demonds and Angels?


The real question is: If ye dun't use yer alignments, how can ye have any pudd'n? How can ya have any pudd'n if ye don't use yer alignments?

 

[smetzger]

I only use Good, Evil, and Nuetral. I don't see the necesity of Law and Chaos and I also feel the definitions of these 2 are too grey.

 

[Wombat]

If you don't have alignments, how would Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil work?

If you don't have alignment, you don't use these spells. If you don't have alignment, you remove all references to alignment in spells, weapons, etc. It's an all or nothing choice

What would be the point of having Demonds and Angels?

Actually, this is a different question. It is quite possible to have demons and angels without having character alignment. Characters are remembered for their actions, maybe looking towards another force to give them guidance, but maybe not (How many characters in any given game actually worship a god? Even clerics, paladins, and druids are not required to do so by the rules, instead following an alignment -- I find that an odder notion than looking to the gods for guidance). Demons and angels, conversely, have no real choice in their actions -- they are extensions of a belief, which is not necessarily the same thing as an alignment. (I could continue this argument into the real world, but I do not wish to start an unnecessary flamewar.) But in the end, what guides supernatural beings does not have to guide mortals. Just a thought.

 

[Talmun]

As I stated in a similar thread, D&D, like most classic fantasy, assumes an Objective Morality. Good and Evil exist outside the beliefs and perceptions of the characters, and alignment is a way to illustrate this.

There is no reason that LG character might not occasionally have a lapse and do something chaotic or even evil (although if he's a paladin, there may be hell to pay...). Alignment is a guide to the tendencies and temperament of a PC, it's not a rigid, unyielding 'strait-jacket'; at least, it shouldn't be.

EDIT: BTW, one of the reasons that some might believe this to be a troll is that the title and first post are a little...confrontational. At least that was my initial thought.

 

[dead]

If you don't have alignments, how would Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil work? What would be the point of having Demonds and Angels?

You make all such spells detect or affect the "enemy" -- much like the already existing Bless spell.

Demons and Devils? Well, Demons are a malicious and sadistic race ("evil") that is a wild, raging horde ("chaotic"). On the other hand, Devils are a malicious and sadistic race ("evil") that is very hierachical and marches forth with iron fist and much political scheming ("lawful").

 

[vox]

If you don't have alignments, how would Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil work? What would be the point of having Demonds and Angels?

I use a sysem similar to what Die Kluge mentioned; alignment is a connection to an outer plane and most people aren't connected to an outer plane. So most people are "neutral" even if they are very good or evil or whatnot. Clerics, demons etc are aligned but that's it.

I like this system since it allows me to keep all the D&D trappings of good planes and holy swords but it makes it more difficult for PCs to use magic to definitively determine someone's character. It also means I don't have to make as many decisions about who is evil/chaotic or whatever when they are in complicated ethical situations.

It's alignment lite and it works for my campaign.

 

[Gothmog]

I use a sysem similar to what Die Kluge mentioned; alignment is a connection to an outer plane and most people aren't connected to an outer plane. So most people are "neutral" even if they are very good or evil or whatnot. Clerics, demons etc are aligned but that's it.

I like this system since it allows me to keep all the D&D trappings of good planes and holy swords but it makes it more difficult for PCs to use magic to definitively determine someone's character. It also means I don't have to make as many decisions about who is evil/chaotic or whatever when they are in complicated ethical situations.

It's alignment lite and it works for my campaign.

Agreed. This is how I handle alignments in my campaign too. I find the idea of objective alignment rather silly, and very game-centered. Real people are not so simplistic as to be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. In fact, I've pretty much ignored alignment in my campaign, even for the paladin! He is still held to a code of conduct, but if he really wanted to, he might be able to violate it in secret, and nobody be the wiser. Of course, that might end up putting him on a slippery slope where he could compromise his principles more readily, which could get him in big trouble. As a whole though, characters in my world don't have alignments, and priests and outsiders are the only ones who register as aligned for purposes of holy/unholy etc effects. I also ditched the detect alignment spells.

 

[kamosa]

I only use Good, Evil, and Nuetral. I don't see the necesity of Law and Chaos and I also feel the definitions of these 2 are too grey.

Between the two of us we use the whole system

I pretty much just use the Law Chaos axis of alignment. Good/Evil is relative depending on your world view in my game. The goblins don't think they are evil, they just don't obey the humans gestault of good and evil.

Characters break down into two types, those that follow the rules and those that don't. People that keep their word and people that don't.

I haven't abolished good and evil from the game, I just make it less of an issue than the battle between those that buy into the social contract and those that break it when ever they can.

 

[Kalanyr]

The reason people call this a troll is because it was started by Talath (on the topic of alignment too, within a week of a previous thread on the same topic), and he proudly proclaims himself a troll, but he largely does it for amusement value as opposed to starting giant arguments.

I just have to say, I've never had a problem with alignments as they stand in 3e, the loss of Exp mechanic in 2e was silly though.

 

[Greyson]

I Don't Use Alignment

We don't use alignment rules in our campaign, and we never have - not in 15 years of D&D gaming. Alignment has never been a pressing issue for us, so we have divested our games of its application.

But, I do understand why there are aliagnment rules. And, I definitely don't see a problem with players and DMs using it to any degree. So I will never argue about alignment issues or flame anyone who applies it or interprets its application differently than I. Alignment, like some D&D rules, is a useful, but not an essential, gaming device.