Alignment System

[Zogmo]

When someone thinks that the alignment system is too limiting for them, I think that that person probably has a chaotic alignment

Ha ha that's funny. And true, very true.

 

[Starglim]

If those are the only two options, systematic alignment all the way.

 

[Zogmo]

My campaigns are solidly set in a god filled world and deal with the forces of Chaos and Law battling across the planes for domination and a lot of interaction with the epic characters across the land.

If you lived in a universe where gods, demons and devils actually existed and people really were worried about even speaking a dread gods name out of fear of being noticed by it, I think the alignment system works great. It adds a whole lot of meaning to the game when deities are very powerful and obviously present in the world.

You need to present the alignment issue properly and thoughtfully in order for people to appreciate it's flavor and not see it as something that restrains them. If they feel that way then it tells me it's just poor DMing.

I've converted a number of people with my campaigns and ideas and proud of their eagerness to join me in any game I run. Return customers are always a good sign.

 

[The Lost Muse]

D&D requires an absolute morality for it's magic system to work. Spells like detect evil, protection from good, etc... need an independant arbiter of what is good, lawful, chaotic, or evil to determine their effect.

 

[sckeener]

I hate it with a passion.

My problem with alignment usually occurs when there is complexity in the game. I don't see how to design N/PCs that are one alignment except for X in the system. I don't think there would be a problem except for the various detect spells. If it wasn't for those, I don't think people would care....as an example of what I get annoyed with...

take a Roman centurion who is LG at home in Rome, but rapes, kills, and pillages the Gauls. I can probably leave the Lawful alone...but the good would have to become neutral at best.

Lets flip it...a barbarian Gual who is CG at home, but rapes, kills, and pillages the Romans...I can probably leave the Chaotic alone, but the good would have to become neutral leaving CN the most hated alignment in the system...

I feel like I should have the N/PC's alignment change depending on their current 'allegiance'....LG/CG in their village and LE/CE in war...which seems silly to me to have to do that...

I'd rather have an allegiances type system, but I frequently do not run them that way because my players would revolt.

 

[diaglo]

i like and use the 3 alignment system.

 

[Umbran]

What I mean is: should good & evil be metaphysical absolutes, backed by an array of otherworldly powers, or not?

Sometimes it should be, and sometimes it shouldn't be. It isn't like I run or play only one sort of game, with only one metaphysic behind them all.

That being said, alignment is a pretty decent tool for the job it is designed to do.

 

[gizmo33]

I voted 'no' but I don't think alignment should be based on character perceptions either.

 

[sydbar]

I'm a fan of the Palladium alignment system, there is 2 good alignments, 2 self serving alignments, and 3 evil alignments, each has a list of what that alignment can do.

 

[delericho]

The system is fine, but not ideally suited to every group or every campaign. Mostly, I use it.

Additionally, for the system to work, it really does need to be backed by cosmic metaphysical forces. If not, and alignment is subjective, then it's better just to drop it from the game.