Alignment Issues!

[twistnack]

I'm kind of partial to the original set: law, chaos, and neutral.

 

[Knightfall]

But Viking Bastard was working-off Nivenus's proposal.

whoops. My bad.

 

[Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn]

9 + 1 is the perfect solution in my mind.

Look, the classic 9 had its rough spots--I don't know how many times I spent arguing with a player over how aligning himself with Chaotic Neutral didn't make him a de facto Evil character--but it covers pretty much the entire moral-ethical spectrum...except for those who simply refuse to choose sides.

Now, a strong case could be made that 'Unaligned' isn't just not choosing a side but actually making a choice to be something else but let's stick with the conceit and posit that in a world where magicks high and low exist, where divine beings are demonstrably real, you can actually make a philosophical case for saying 'To heck with all y'all!' and run with it.

It could devolve into nothing more than uncaring vice unaligned (which puts it closer to the intersection of weak Chaotic and stronger True Neutral, in my head) I think there's enough headspace to differentiate between TN and UA if we define True Neutral as strictly those who actively resist the Four Axis construct (Law/Chaos/Good/Evil). Unaligned wouldn't have that active component.

 

[Aldarc]

I really do like Ninevus's proposal to reduce NG to G, NE to E, LN to L, and CN to C, as I think this really makes it far clearer as to where a character's allegiance lies. With Chaotic Neutral, for example, players seem more focused on the moral axis - often riding the line between 'neutral' and 'evil' - than they perhaps should be on the Chaotic aspect. But if you can just say that your character's alignment, and allegiance in the cosmic struggle, is Chaos, then there can be greater focus on what Chaos means as opposed to how Chaotic Neutral relates to Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil. It basically says, "You can be dedicated to Good, Evil, Chaos, Law, with the possibility of having multiple allegiances. If neither of these are satisfactory, you can declare yourself True Neutral or simply Unaligned."

 

[Ainamacar]

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.

The "didn't care" flavor meshes well with the Unaligned alignment, while True Neutral doesn't really.

Also, I'd favor simplifying some of the names. Good and Evil can become the new names for Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, indicating that characters of those alignments aren't actively trying to balance law and chaos most of the time, they're just fully devoted to serve good or evil.

Similarly, I'd rename Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral to simply Lawful and Chaotic, which I think would solve some of the "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid" problems of prior editions, so that players of those alignments don't feel like they have to constantly go back and forth between being both good and evil and instead just focusing on a devotion to order or chaos.

You really nailed this post.

I like that Neutral is like glass: transparent unless there's nothing else to see.

----

I think that there should be no required mechanical interactions with alignment. With respect to the Detect Spells I can think of 3 distinct options to define how they relate to alignment, which might serve in most campaigns.

1) They don't exist. Done and done.
2) Traditional, detecting evil creatures and effects.
3) Compromise, detecting only current evil actions, states, or thoughts.

For games with stark moral contrasts traditional might be just fine. For games with Grey-and-Grey morality, or where no one wants to deal with it, getting rid of them is also perfect. For people who like the themes of alignment but hate the headaches the compromise might work.

In my opinion an evil artifact might still show up all the time in the compromise setting, but you avoid every creature walking around with a neon alignment sign. This really simplifies issues in infiltration or betrayal plots, to say nothing of paladins using Detect Evil to justify playing whack-a-mole with random people on the street. When evil creatures do good things, detect good sees it. And vice versa.

I think it's reasonable that a vicious murderer eying his victim in the crowd could be detected, but the same guy grabbing a bagel at his local coffee shop could not. And if he knows the PCs are after him, sometimes the best thing to do is think about his favorite puppy.

 

[Wormwood]

My three alignments:

Hero
Villain
Han Solo

Everyone else is just an NPC

 

[foolish_mortals]

maybe an evil point scale, 1 to 5. With 1 being goodie and 5 being bad.

foolish_mortals

 

[Christopher Hawkins]

It seems that I'm in agreement of the general consensus of this thread: Utilizing the 9-grid, while adding unaligned as an option. Though, keeping with 5e's (hopefully) plugin nature, having a page or two that describes different possible alignment systems would be awesome.

P.S. Foolish Mortal? I think you just described 4e's 5-track system (LG-G-U-E-CE)

 

[Incenjucar]

Alignment can be included or not, I don't especially care. It's fun for some people, so hey, fun option. Just don't make it a required part of any mechanics, including a possible Planescape revival. Tangible Alignment should be its own option. Heck, give it its own book so it doesn't interfere with the rest of the game.

 

[Wormwood]

P.S. Foolish Mortal? I think you just described 4e's 5-track system (LG-G-U-E-CE)

that was very likely the point.