Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5776214" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think Alignment is one of the most complex topic to address! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm fine with the traditional 3x3 alignment combinations, but not a huge fan.One problem with alignment is that it is usually very much integrated with other mechanics, such as spells, class requirements/features, magic items... this means that usually every game has one fixed alignment system since the start, which of course whatever the choice will appeal to some but not others.So how to make everyone happy?It's hard... but if I were to design that, as a starting point I would:- make alignment optional, so that you can choose to even have it or not in your game, and you can choose what kind of alignment system- provide a small bunch of alignment systems in the core books, including the traditional 3x3 system and its variants (like the old simpler lawful-to-chaotic, or the 4e variant) but also other systems. Personally I like the &quot;5-colours&quot; system used by Magic: The Gathering. Other alternatives suggested in the core could include an Honor rank system.- instead of writing spells/abilities/items that explicitly mention one alignment, make them generic, such as &quot;Protection from Alignment&quot;, and then leave each gaming group the responsibility to complete the definition of such spells according to the alignment system they use (just make sure to state that they need to break it down into multiple spells each one affecting a different alignment to keep some balance). If the alignment system is rank-based, such spells would be defined by the DM to affect targets above/below a threshold, or within a range.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5776214, member: 1465"] I think Alignment is one of the most complex topic to address! :) I'm fine with the traditional 3x3 alignment combinations, but not a huge fan. One problem with alignment is that it is usually very much integrated with other mechanics, such as spells, class requirements/features, magic items... this means that usually every game has one fixed alignment system since the start, which of course whatever the choice will appeal to some but not others. So how to make everyone happy? It's hard... but if I were to design that, [I]as a starting point[/I] I would: - make alignment optional, so that you can choose to even have it or not in your game, and you can choose what kind of alignment system - provide a small bunch of alignment systems in the core books, including the traditional 3x3 system and its variants (like the old simpler lawful-to-chaotic, or the 4e variant) but also other systems. Personally I like the "5-colours" system used by Magic: The Gathering. Other alternatives suggested in the core could include an Honor rank system. - instead of writing spells/abilities/items that explicitly mention one alignment, make them [I]generic[/I], such as "Protection from Alignment", and then leave each gaming group the responsibility to complete the definition of such spells according to the alignment system they use (just make sure to state that they need to break it down into multiple spells each one affecting a different alignment to keep some balance). If the alignment system is rank-based, such spells would be defined by the DM to affect targets above/below a threshold, or within a range. [/QUOTE]

Verification