alignment alternatives

[alsih2o]

has anyone out there had any experience with broader philosophical identities as compared to the whole lawful-chaotic...good-evil thing?

more specifically, i wonder if p.c.'s couldn't choose either humian form of british empiricism or a kant-like german idealism, or a continental rationalism reminiscent of descartes as a way of describing their outlook on life?

or, for that matter, a blend? can anyone see a chaotic marxist? socratic or platonic evil?

 

[alsih2o]

woo-hoo! 100th post(wow, too much time on MY hands)

 

[alsih2o]

bump?

 

[Eternalknight]

You could always try using honor, like Oriental Adventures does.

 

[kengar]

more specifically, i wonder if p.c.'s couldn't choose either humian form of british empiricism or a kant-like german idealism, or a continental rationalism reminiscent of descartes as a way of describing their outlook on life?

Heh, someone's been taking PHIL 101.

Seriously, though, most of those philosophical theories could be translated into alignment terms if you wanted to: Kant's categorical imperative is one the better expressions of a Neutral Good philosophy, etc.

If you aim is to "break out of" using alignments, then simply have your players describe their character's outlook on life and ethics; possibly written in a short (50-ish word) paragraph. Then, as DM, you can gauge their Roleplaying against it. Playing their character along the ideas they express in their descriptions gets them XP, keeps them in favor with their deities, etc.

If you did like I first mentioned and matched these philosophies to alignments, then I would still give RP experience points to players that adhered not just to the alignment, but their "personal" philosophies as well.


IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[seasong]

One of my favorite alternative alignment systems:

Choose a diety you are aligned with, and set your degree of alignment (1 = reasonably strong, 2 = strong, 3 = passionate / fanatical, 4 = inhuman / divine spirit).

I usually allowed players to pick a secondary alignment if they wanted, as long as the sum of degrees didn't exceed 3.

Neutral, of course, means no alignment.

 

[hong]

Alignments are one of the bad things about D&D. It just breaks verisimilitude (a big word you use so that people can't pin you down on "realism") if characters can kill things over and over again and not become evil. They're like hit points for the soul. And did I mention that I hate hit points too? If you're lawful good, you could survive a 100-foot drop and walk away unscathed!!! What's so heroic about that? I propose that instead of gaining alignments, you could have AC ("alignment class") that keeps you from going bad. There's nothing less heroic about going bad 10% less often compared to becoming 10% more bad. And the best part is that because heroism isn't tied to alignment anymore, Conan can become chaotic evil (like Robert A. Heinlein intended him to be) and Cthulhu can become lawful good (like H.P. Lovelace intended her to be).

THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS

 

[Frums]

Alignment ALternatives...

Just don't use em. Period. If you are a Pallie or Cleric - act in accorsance with your god's tenets and be judged thusly.

Otherwise it all doesn't matter anyway.

-Frums

 

[Bonedagger]

...If you're lawful good, you could survive a 100-foot drop and walk away unscathed!!! ...

Cheers mate.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Questionnaire might do it... just in order to establish broad moral position on several possible situations + background to define player motivation.