Alignment System

[an_idol_mind]

I would rather see Alignment kept as descriptors and DMs left to judge their character's morality and actions.

I always thought that was what the current system is.

The phrase, "You can't do that, it's not in your character's alignment" or anything similar has never been uttered in my games. Alignment in the current edition is a description. That's why it's in the Character Description chapter of the Player's Handbook. It's there as a loose guideline of how a character acts. If a character consistently follows a path that is outside his alignment, then the alignment changes. There is nothing anywhere in my copy of the current rules that even suggests alignment as a restriction on a character's behavior. In fact, I'm almost certain that the Player's Handbook specifically states that alignment is not a straightjacket for character behavior and that very few people are entirely consistent.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think this post is a good example of exactly what Kamikaze Midget and I are talking about. No offense intended, GoodKingJayIII.

Not offended. I read the first few posts, voted, and posted my opinion, which is what I usually do in these sorts of polls. I'm not really surprised I was beaten to it, which is why I didn't really elaborate on my opinion. I figured someone else already had.

But I promise I'll read your posts if I feel the burning need to say something else.

 

[The_Gneech]

I like that it has two axes (i.e., law vs. chaos as well as good vs. evil); whether it's useful or worth including varies from campaign to campaign. In more hard-bitten S&S games, it's so rare to find anybody in the "good" spectrum that you might as well just have two alignments, "demonic" vs. "amoral"; OTOH, if you want to play with the whole "paladins vs. blackguards" type of story, the alignment system works nicely.

My main suggestion, if I had one, would be to downplay it. The idea that "lawful" characters can't rage, for instance, or that "chaotic" characters have no self-discipline, is just silly.

-The Gneech

 

[buzz]

I'm not really surprised I was beaten to it, which is why I didn't really elaborate on my opinion.

Well, what I meant was that your post, IMO, exemplified the common misconceptions KM and I were saying tend to complicate alignment discussion. Ergo, why I said I wasn't saying that in order to offend.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Well, what I meant was that your post, IMO, exemplified the common misconceptions KM and I were saying tend to complicate alignment discussion. Ergo, why I said I wasn't saying that in order to offend.

To be fair, I do think you're reading into my original post. I'm not talking about alignment as a restriction to character action. I'm only talking about alignment as a mechanical part of the game. I would like to see it used as a roleplaying mechanic only, which can't be done in the current version of the game. Remove alignment and many items, creatures, and spells lose defining parts of their charater. Entire chapters of books would need reworking. Alignment is critical to the function of the rules, which I don't like.

When I was talking about descriptors, that's all I want from the system, whether they be for characters, monsters, etc. I don't want class-defining abilities or spells based on alignment, and if there are any, they should be rare and reserved for those powers (i.e., extraplanar beings) who are composed of the cosmic alignment they represent.

When I said I didn't want characters to interact with alignments, I meant that I don't want characters to be able to tell what another's alignment is, which they can do pretty easily.

 

[sckeener]

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 different things....

And what did the Guals detect? Romans weren't very humane to non-Romans.

I get what you are saying that there is a difference between how people in the game view someone and universe views that person. However as others have mentioned actions are what matters in the alignment system. The alignment system has become a tally board where 'evil' actions against the Guals would need to be weighed against the 'good' actions at home to get that neutral alignment. Since it is actions, wouldn't a Roman detect as evil if he'd just sacked (raped, killed, pillaged) a Gual village...or has he somehow balanced out all these bad actions already per fate...

I think alignment is really only an issue when there are detect spells /abilities. I think if the detect spells/ability were done away with then the alignment issue is moot.

Detect spells would be silly too for Romans vs Guals....so what if either registered as good...they still would have been treated the same.

I'm just glad there isn't a detect class spell/ability. I think paladins would hunt rogues...

 

[Tal Rasha]

I agree with the alignment system, for several reasons, some already stated, such as the moderate level of complexity it affords, the fact that it doesn't need to be a cage around the players, and the reality that it is appropriate for a game. On this point, I think that what people desire out of their characters in complexity of mindset and behaviour is best achieved through able role-playing rather than specs and statistics. Also, real-life morality is a hugely complex issue and should probably be handled with care.

Perhaps its most useful role, however, is to provide a guideline to players, old but especially new, into the game world. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are useful boundaries, or paths if you will. Saying to the player "we have a million possible moral choices, just like in real life" is confusing. And when all is said and done, how many interesting characters that span the entire alignment spectrum have you seen?

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

I find the alignment system to be simplistic and deficient. I believe that alignment should be, at the very least be a reflection of what is expected of a practitioner of a particular belief-system or religion, and have those beliefs outlined. Then on top of this, you have a measure of a character's morality. How well does someone adhere to their own religion? Then you can reward this person in regards to their own belief system and morality. I tend to do this by adopting the Palladium alignment system, and calling it 'morality', where each religion has it’s own alignment. It's fine, I believe, to talk about supernatural good and evil, so that you don't have to do away with related abilities and spells.

Of course, this system tends to make things quite convoluted and complicated. But then, real-world morality is a complicated thing. This of course is not to say that a character won't be judged on their piety, devotion and actions.

But I take the view that there can't be any atheists in a world where there is direct evidence that gods exist. If you want to rebut the fact that a god exists, go right ahead. I still allow it in my game. But divine powers won’t work on them… ie. healing. They tend not be protected from the evils of the world, or just outright smote by the gods who are feeling vindictive and petty.

Thor, ”So, I don’t exist eh? Disbelieve this!” *Smote!*
Save versus reflex. Did you beat a 45? How many hitpoints did you have?

A trait I have noticed far too often in players today is that they tend to not pick good or evil. They have no issues with law or chaos, but good and evil are "lame." Dealing with a party of mostly Neutral PC's is one thing I don't like doing. How do you motivate them? What fire drives them? True Nuetral is the worst. It's like trying to inspire a rock.

What do you do when someone doesn’t want to join a church? Well, take that as a reflection of the world. That everyone is apathetic about religion in general. So, what happens then? Clerics start losing their powers… or they become fervent zealots. Healing doesn’t work on heathens who don’t believe in getting involved. Have a celestial stand by and watch as a daemon chokes the life out of one of the PCs asking, “How lame do you think it is now?”

Also, applying your own morality and beliefs to a religion is not, if anything, dangerous. You may want ‘distant cosmic arbiters’ to be distant and alien. But that doesn’t mean that they are. But hey, that’s up to you and your sense of the dramatic to decide if you want gods to be omniscient or not. For me, the gods are very active in my world. They aren’t all-knowing, all-seeing. But they do have their minions. I think it make things much more interesting that way. That is not to say that they are watching you right now though. ”You are traveling with a cleric of who? The cleric did say he was on a spiritual quest right? What makes you think his god isn’t watching right now?”

As such, alignment shouldn't be based on character perceptions, not when you have entities such as the gods, clerics, and whatever powerful entities are there to clearly lay out in front of you their wants for their religion. The whole question and concept of believing that alignment is based solely on character perceptions comes from the belief that the gods, powers-that-be, clerics and whoever else who believes that they have power and sway over your piety isn't going to be proactive.

I do find it an interesting character concept to play/run; where you have people doing very evil things in the name of their ‘good’ god. ”Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eiu” But it’s not something I can do all the time. It’s a trick that loses it’s novelty pretty quickly.

Now it's fine if the powers-that-be are absentee landlords. Who don't care about their worshippers. But personally, I don't believe that. Especially when you have you have deities granting powers to their clerics. -- Now, if you want to run with the idea that gods really don't care what their clerics do; that they don't manage their own religions. That's fine. Then you can run with the idea that their parishioners are free to do whatever they please, and even claim it's for the good of their religion/god. It’s your game.

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.

Ahh… but who is arbitrator of that centurion, or barbarian’s actions? The perpetrator? I think not. I would imagine that it would be the god/goddess of either of those two persons who is the final judge of what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Now, that may not be looking at a third… all encompassing party that may judge both of those people to be evil. But as GM, you have to decide who/what is the final arbiter of alignment.

Should good and evil be metaphysical absolutes? I'll go out on a limb here and say... no. Good and evil in a fantasy paradigm such as what D&D allows are very much real entities. These things can be detected (if not measured), protected against and utilized for whatever purposes the mortals, the gods and the outsiders can think or dream of.

I feel too many people want to apply their own modern ambivalence if not disdain towards anything remotely approaching religions, even if they are imaginary. To avoid making targets of themselves, D&D doesn’t really concentrate on the effects and ramifications of religions in a fictitious world. I think this sacred cow was added to the game without any thought to it.

So... someone tell me, how does this Allegiance system work? Does Arcana Evolved have no alignment? Is there anything there to replace it? I have limited access to the internet. It's a complete miracle that I can even get to EnWorld. (I can't get to the store section though) Most forum websites are all firewalled against here.

So, if the alignment system is like tarragon, then religions are like hollandaise? Believed to be hard to make, yet relatively easy, but slightly labourious and time-consuming, and prone to separate if not observed closely?

What’s the point of having Big Brother… well… Big Daddy if they aren’t going to be watching?

 

[I'm A Banana]

When I said I didn't want characters to interact with alignments, I meant that I don't want characters to be able to tell what another's alignment is, which they can do pretty easily.

Valid Alignment Complaint #66: Cast a spell, know your enemy.

While there's a million and one ways around that without ditching alignment, alignment does enable the battle lines to be pretty clearly drawn, which isn't always something you want from a campaign.

I rectify this in my own campaign by making alignment-as-a-force only available to divine spellcasters and outsiders and the like, and by making sure that Evil isn't nessecarily to be avoided. I don't punish my players for playing Evil characters, or for doing evil deeds. I may even reward them for it, in the right context. If that is who their character is, that is who it is, and some angel of good isn't going to come down and smite you next tuesday because of it. The only stricture I put on alignment is "you have to be able to get along in a party." Which doesn't even rule out some paladin/CE mass murderer party combos, if they're clever about it.

That, and detection spells and magic circle spells and the like work only against Outsiders and divine spellcasters and others with powerful auras of alignment energy. In general, this does not include commoners who just like to kick puppies (or even commoners who like to rape and kill little girls in the seedy alleyways of cities).

That way, I can keep the heroic feel of the game (yes, that Demon is Really Bad. So bad, you can cast a spell and *feel* his badness), while still keeping human interaction fairly important (your paladin can't tell just by looking at the CE mass murderer that he's CE, though he might be able to tell if he hangs out with you enough).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

FWIW, the one thing I disagree with most alignment-denigrators on is it being difficult to remove. I've run games where I didn't use it in any form and ones where I only used it when a creature had an alignment subtype, and the game ran just fine.

The only actual rules change that resulted from the former case was ruling what a paladin could and could not smite; fortunately, the player who player a smite-oriented paladin had planned on taking the Shadowbane Inquisitor prestige class (which pretty much grants 'smite anyone') from the outset and quickly got into it. I would be inclined to make it 'smite enemy,' since in most campaigns where game balance is relevant, that's what it essentially is.

In the latter case the game ran completely without a hitch.