Alignment System
- Thread starter WarlockLord
- Start date
BlueBlackRed
Explorer
When someone thinks that the alignment system is too limiting for them, I think that that person probably has a chaotic alignment 
Lord Rasputin
Explorer
Ditch the current alignment system. Make Law/Chaos and Outgoing/Quiet personality tags and some minor mechanical benefits. Replace Good/Evil with Good Points/Evil Points, rehashed Force Points/Dark Side Points.
Nyeshet
First Post
I don't particularly like it, . . .
. . . but I am not certain what a good replacement for it would be. Perhaps a five point system, going back to something akin to alignments of "NG (CG)", or maybe the allegiance system I've heard of in d20 Modern (ie: devoted to this or that organization, nation, ethnic group, religion instead of towards an ethic / moral alignment pattern), or perhaps even the Force / Dark point system in SW RPG might work. I tend to often ignore it entirely, I admit. The characters are what the players think they are, and whatever alignment they have is immaterial to the current quest, etc.
On the other hand, I can easily see a group of mostly Good and Lawful leaning characters dealing with an CG Eladrin as a BBEG. In this instance each seeks to do what is best, but the chaotic eladrin seeks to accomplish its goals in a such a way that the party composed of mostly NG and LG characters (perhaps with a LN &/or NN fellow in the mix, but no chaotics) see as too dangerous, hostile to the present environment / situation, or even callous to accept. They may or may not realize that their ultimate foe is a paragon of Good (albeit Chaotic Good), but even if they realize the situation, they have to do what they feel / know / believe is right, and if that means destroying the Eladrins plans, perhaps even slaying its Good &/or Neutral allies / minions, and maybe even killing the Eladrin - well, it is just another quest for the party, ever seeking to do Right - as they view and understand it to be. Slaying the Eladrin is not necessarily an evil act. It all depends on the situation. Any AL taken to extremes is potentially dangerous - although that may just be the Tao side of my personality speaking.
. . . but I am not certain what a good replacement for it would be. Perhaps a five point system, going back to something akin to alignments of "NG (CG)", or maybe the allegiance system I've heard of in d20 Modern (ie: devoted to this or that organization, nation, ethnic group, religion instead of towards an ethic / moral alignment pattern), or perhaps even the Force / Dark point system in SW RPG might work. I tend to often ignore it entirely, I admit. The characters are what the players think they are, and whatever alignment they have is immaterial to the current quest, etc.
Not necessarily. It depends on the cosmology of the setting, I think.WarlockLord said:
On the other hand, I can easily see a group of mostly Good and Lawful leaning characters dealing with an CG Eladrin as a BBEG. In this instance each seeks to do what is best, but the chaotic eladrin seeks to accomplish its goals in a such a way that the party composed of mostly NG and LG characters (perhaps with a LN &/or NN fellow in the mix, but no chaotics) see as too dangerous, hostile to the present environment / situation, or even callous to accept. They may or may not realize that their ultimate foe is a paragon of Good (albeit Chaotic Good), but even if they realize the situation, they have to do what they feel / know / believe is right, and if that means destroying the Eladrins plans, perhaps even slaying its Good &/or Neutral allies / minions, and maybe even killing the Eladrin - well, it is just another quest for the party, ever seeking to do Right - as they view and understand it to be. Slaying the Eladrin is not necessarily an evil act. It all depends on the situation. Any AL taken to extremes is potentially dangerous - although that may just be the Tao side of my personality speaking.
Last edited:
I like an alignment system for D&D. I don't require it (or an analogous element of it) in games that don't have one.
Sejs
First Post
Really, you're asking two questions here.
1) Do I like the alignment system? Yes, I do. It's not perfect, but it's workable. Particularly when you take the whole actions-dictate-alignment (instead of the opposite) and intention versus deed thing. Plus a game or DM can focus or defocus on it as they feel fits best.
2) Do I think good and evil should be based solely on individual perception? No. Absolutely friggin' not. Leads to some big problems. For starters, some of history's greatest monsters did not think their actions evil, despite how truly horrid they were. I'd cite examples, but frankly I think we can all think of a few. Beyond that, it opens things up to the ultimate in lazy justification: the "well it's not X to me" fallacy. Ethics should be painted in broad strokes, and interpreted in fine. Objective, seen through a lens of subjective.
1) Do I like the alignment system? Yes, I do. It's not perfect, but it's workable. Particularly when you take the whole actions-dictate-alignment (instead of the opposite) and intention versus deed thing. Plus a game or DM can focus or defocus on it as they feel fits best.
2) Do I think good and evil should be based solely on individual perception? No. Absolutely friggin' not. Leads to some big problems. For starters, some of history's greatest monsters did not think their actions evil, despite how truly horrid they were. I'd cite examples, but frankly I think we can all think of a few. Beyond that, it opens things up to the ultimate in lazy justification: the "well it's not X to me" fallacy. Ethics should be painted in broad strokes, and interpreted in fine. Objective, seen through a lens of subjective.
Sejs
First Post
WarlockLord said:
Yep, it should.
And those otherworldly powers should be (and this is important) impersonal.
They should not be all up in your grill if you steal a candy bar. They shouldn't even be in your face if you slaughter an entire people. Distant cosmic arbiters of good and evil should be, well, distant. And cosmic. Operating on a scale so unfathomably huge the events of one small world doesn't even register on their radar, normally. They don't see you steal that candy bar any more than you're able to see one of your cells.
On the big scale, they should exist in order to provide a guideline. A starting point. But they shouldn't get involved unless someone or something goes expressly out of their way to involve them.
Big Brother should exist, but he should not be watching you.
Similar Threads
