Alignment System

[Lockridge]

In a role-playing game (as opposed to roll-play of course) I find the alignment system to be very restrictive.
This is especially true if you have a PC who changes alignment over time for a good reason. I like the concept of character evolution - character growth in other words. The alignment system prevents and hinders this.
Furthermore alignments have been the subject of too much subjectivity at the table. DMs and players fighting over what a character "would do" gets annoying.
I prefer Arcana Evolved for avoiding the alignment trap altogether.

 

[Voadam]

I love descriptor alignment. Primal elemental supernatural forces of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are cool. I hate adjudicating whether actions are evil for paladins and I dislike mechanics restricting character alignments for classes. Lawful berserkers and chaotic martial artists make sense to me. In my house ruled pbp game only descriptor alignments exist, everyone is default neutral, and classes are not restricted by alignment.

 

[Psion]

Would I use it for every sort of game or situation? No. (I think things like analyzing Jack Bauer are beyond pointless).

Is it a workable system given a little DM testicular fortitude in making judgment calls? Yep.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I am not a fan of it and try to use it as little as possible.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I answered 'No' in the poll, which is great because it's my answer to both questions the OP asked!

Alignment is a poor system IMX. Its mechanical implementation is lame, and while it probably helps brand new players - but then again, perhaps not - it causes a ton of problems with players who are only passingly familiar with the game. Not to mention those who are set in their ways 'alignment means I act like THIS' where THIS is usually idiotic.

On the other hand, I don't think good and evil should be subjective, nor do I think the game world should be absent cosmic forces of good and evil. I'd just rather see the former done with roleplaying and a modicum of common sense, and the latter with subtypes (which it already is).

 

[Wombat]

Nope

No need for one

"You shall know them by their deeds" is the motto for my gaming group.

Unfortunately, like levels, alignment is one of the divine bovines of the game.

 

[pogre]

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.

I voted no, but use alignment for the reason listed above. I would like to see it written out of the next edition.

 

[Umbran]

I

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.

Yes, that is true. I just don't see it as a problem. What the Universe thinks of the guy and what his fellow Romans think are two differnet things....

Basically, maybe all of Rome isn't so hung up on Good. The centurion may, in their eyes, be a fine, honorable, and laudable individual, because as a culture they are more interested in Law and their own advancement as an Empire than they are on making things Good for everyone.

Remember, most humans are not Good. They are Neutral, and thus should have no problems with others who are Neutral.

 

[the Jester]

No reason it can't be both, is there?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Totally useless. Its a descriptor that causes fights in most cases, and is redundant in the best case scenario. Only reason its still around is to prevent the Gygax fanboys from crying.