Alignment House Rules

[Dogbrain]

I have played in campaigns where PCs did not even have alignments for the first few levels, and then the DM assigned alignment based on behavior. The idea was that, starting out, nobody is really "aligned" beyond very vague and fuzzy tendencies.

Monks and Barbarians were outlawed because they didn't fit the flavor. "Paladins" didn't exist as a starting option, but a character who ultimately qualified could apply all Fighter levels to the Paladin class. Of course, the character had to be squeaky-clean to do this. It worked because the players were all cool with the idea and players and DM trusted each other.

 

[SylverFlame]

I had a 2e campaign where we did away with alignment. At the time, the class books had personality types listed in them. All I did was make the players pick one or two of those and they played their character with that as the guide lines. It went great. No more "well is it really evil" questions, and the players all knew exactly how their player would react: "Well, I'm pragmatic, so this is how how I think."

I agree that alignment is a sacred cow. The real problem I have with it though is that there has never been a real attempt to clear up just what each element is. In 2e it was a mine field with dice fights and everything. 3e is a little better, but not much. It's just too muddied a subject to define in nine parts.

 

[ciaran00]

No real D&D equivalent for the "Aberrant" alignment in Rifts....

ciaran

 

[Hypersmurf]

No real D&D equivalent for the "Aberrant" alignment in Rifts....

I'd map Aberrant fairly closely to Lawful Evil, actually.

Miscreant to Neutral Evil, and Diabolic to Chaotic Evil.

It's not perfect, but I wouldn't say it's bad, either...

-Hyp.