Alignment Issues!

[Thotas]

Ever check out Mutants & Masterminds 2e? That game has what it calls "allegiances". Your character can have up to three of them. They can be an organization, a country, a person, a concept, or whatever else makes sense in the context of character or campaign. So if you made a Captain America-like character, you could give him allegiance to The USA, Freedom and (during the Second World War, any way) the Allied Forces. Story could cause a particular allegiance to be dropped out of irrelevance (no point in having an allegiance to the Allies when the war is over) or character's psychological make up changing.

"Fealty" might be a better word than allegiance for the genre. And obviously, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos would all be concepts a person could be sworn to.

 

[Nivenus]

Ever check out Mutants & Masterminds 2e? That game has what it calls "allegiances". Your character can have up to three of them. They can be an organization, a country, a person, a concept, or whatever else makes sense in the context of character or campaign. So if you made a Captain America-like character, you could give him allegiance to The USA, Freedom and (during the Second World War, any way) the Allied Forces. Story could cause a particular allegiance to be dropped out of irrelevance (no point in having an allegiance to the Allies when the war is over) or character's psychological make up changing.

"Fealty" might be a better word than allegiance for the genre. And obviously, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos would all be concepts a person could be sworn to.

The problem with allegiances is that they seem awfully setting-specific to me. Sure, you can change the allegiances from factions to concepts like good, evil, law, and chaos, but then, aren't they pretty much just alignments anyway?

I'm not actually opposed to the idea of allegiances, but I think they should be limited to campaign settings and even more optional than mechanical alignment rules.

 

[Thotas]

Well, yeah. What you're calling a "problem" is actually pretty much my "design goal". The concept of alignment always struck me as a guideline to what was important to the character in character, which I like, but I thought it could've been done better. And when I read the allegiance rules, my thought was "yes, more like that".

As far as campaign specific, that's an example of where I see a feature where you see a bug. Let me emphasize, three allegiances are a max. You don't have to have any if you don't want to. So I'm only giving my character an allegiance that is campaign specific if it's because I'm really wanting to tie him or her to some feature of the campaign. A character that has fealty to Law and His Family isn't as tied to the campaign as someone who has fealty to Lord Nisnik and the 42nd Legion Regular Unit, but that's totally my choice, so it's fine.

 

[LurkAway]

Edit: never mind

 

[Celebrim]

I actually think there should be 10 alignments: the told 9 alignments plus 4e's Unaligned.

Why you ask? Because Unaligned really covers different ground then True Neutral does. Neutral, as it existed in editions prior to 4e, always came in basically two flavors: characters who were actively neutral and seeking to avoid being "overly" good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and those who simply didn't care.

I don't buy that 'unaligned' is different that true neutral, especially when speaking of a moral actor of some sort.

Suppose those that 'simply didn't' consistantly did good, without conscious thought on the matter? Are they still 'unaligned'? What about if they consistantly do evil? Are they still 'unaligned'?

Self-awareness and a proactive morality (or its lack) are traits that we can apply to any of the alignments - not just true neutrality. From the standpoint of an active True Neutral, the unaligned person is simply someone who has achieved - with apparant effortlessness - in achieving what they strive for through conscious effort.

But I don't by that you can behave in any fashion you desire, simply not care, and achieve "Unaligned" in any system where the alignments have some concrete existance. And I don't buy that in a system where alignments have no concrete existence, that you need them at all.

Hense, I see 'unaligned' as merely one of several important subcategories of Neutrality, just as I see each of the other alignments having a variaty of distinctive approaches depending on how intellectually engaged the person is with their alignment. This is something which for me would most readily come out in how I approached animating two characters with the same alignment but different intelligences. The philosophical Wizard, or thoughtful shaman might be actively pursuing balance, harmony, and moderation, while the uneducated sailor might simply not care that much. The personality might be very different, but I think the alignment is the same.

 

[LurkAway]

Ever check out Mutants & Masterminds 2e? That game has what it calls "allegiances". Your character can have up to three of them. They can be an organization, a country, a person, a concept, or whatever else makes sense in the context of character or campaign.
<snip>
"Fealty" might be a better word than allegiance for the genre. And obviously, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos would all be concepts a person could be sworn to.

So in that presentation, you could get something a little more modular:

Lawful - Unaligned - Chaotic
Good - Unaligned - Evil
[optional slots for other alignments]

It's really no different than what @Nivenus suggested, except to decouple the alignments for more modularity. Groups could pick the Good-Evil axis and/or the Law-Chaos axis and/or additional setting-appropriate alignments.

 

[Desdichado]

Personally, I prefer the system of 9 alignments although I'd be willing to replace "True Neutral" for "Unaligned."

Not me. Ideally, I'd actually prefer there to not be alignment at all.

The 4E system was okay, and had its innovations, but it didn't feel like D&D to me.

Which I think is unusual, because to me it felt a lot like a hybrid of the AD&D 9 alignment system and the more classic BD&D alignment that I first learned. If anything, it felt more like D&D to me than the very specificall AD&D 9 alignment ever did. Plus, the unaligned option went a long way towards "fixing"--or at least making a moot point out of--a lot of the perennial issues that folks always had with alignment.

If alignment has to be included (and honestly, it probably does) I'd rather see the 4e take on alignment than the clunky old 9-point alignment.

 

[Desdichado]

Ever check out Mutants & Masterminds 2e? That game has what it calls "allegiances". Your character can have up to three of them. They can be an organization, a country, a person, a concept, or whatever else makes sense in the context of character or campaign. So if you made a Captain America-like character, you could give him allegiance to The USA, Freedom and (during the Second World War, any way) the Allied Forces. Story could cause a particular allegiance to be dropped out of irrelevance (no point in having an allegiance to the Allies when the war is over) or character's psychological make up changing.

Which M&M borrowed from d20 Modern, who had that beforehand. It's an interesting take on the idea too. I think ultimately, that wouldn't pass the test of "is it D&D enough" for most players, though--making it an optional add-on or replacement, rather than a default.

 

[Nivenus]

To me an Unaligned character is simply who just hasn't chosen sides yet. A True Neutral character, however is someone who has: they've chosen no side and a middle road.

To a certain extent, it's almost like there's three axes: good vs. evil, law vs. chaos, dedication vs. apathy. To a certain extent, nearly all of the alignments fall towards dedication, whereas Unaligned is mostly apathetic. In this way, I see Unaligned as sort of the base alignment that all the others grow out of.

Would an Unaligned character that mostly acts good be Unaligned? It depends. Depending on how often they act "Good" it might be worth noting to the player as a GM that their alignment doesn't really fit them anymore. Again, I think it's important to let players switch alignments if their initial alignment doesn't really mesh with the way they play their character. Players should be encouraged to follow their alignment, but it shouldn't be a trap that prevents them from acting freely.

EDIT:

Not me. Ideally, I'd actually prefer there to not be alignment at all.

Which I think is unusual, because to me it felt a lot like a hybrid of the AD&D 9 alignment system and the more classic BD&D alignment that I first learned. If anything, it felt more like D&D to me than the very specificall AD&D 9 alignment ever did. Plus, the unaligned option went a long way towards "fixing"--or at least making a moot point out of--a lot of the perennial issues that folks always had with alignment.

If alignment has to be included (and honestly, it probably does) I'd rather see the 4e take on alignment than the clunky old 9-point alignment.

I think a good compromise would be to include Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Unaligned as the base alignments with the LG, CG, LE, CE, and TN as easily added options. That way you have a five-alignment system very similar to 4e's and BD&D's right out of the box while leaving the options from AD&D and 3e to be added in easily.

I'd also personally like the Monster Manual or its equivalent to support all alignments right out of the box, though it's not a deal-breaker for me by any means - just a preference.

 

[billd91]

Which M&M borrowed from d20 Modern, who had that beforehand. It's an interesting take on the idea too. I think ultimately, that wouldn't pass the test of "is it D&D enough" for most players, though--making it an optional add-on or replacement, rather than a default.

And which d20 Modern probably borrowed from Pendragon. I've tinkered with the idea of including Pendragon-style loyalties in D&D back in the 2e days. I wouldn't mind seeing them as an addition to D&D as an alternative or addition to alignments.