Alignment - the simple way

[Buttercup]

I have all the players write their alignments on the character sheet at the beginning of the campaign. I explain that their true alignment is the way they behave, and it may be changed if need be. Then I never worry about alignment again.

What he said. I figure my players know what sort of character they're playing, and how that character would behave in any given situation. So far this hasn't caused any problems.

 

[Mystery Man]

At the beginning of the game, get the players to write their alignments on their character sheets.

When alignment-depended spells or abilities get used against them, or they need certain alignments to enter prestige classes, look at their character sheets to see what they've written there.

Between sessions (or adventures, depending on your style of play), they may change their alignment, assuming it doesn't break any of the restrictions they have for classes and the like. (Classes generally have rules for what happens when this happens, anyway).

Ta Da! The D&D alignment system!

Please note that this alignment system makes no reference to actual character behaviour. Instead, it actually represents the forces of the multiverse that the character has chosen to align themselves with.

It thus is a useful game mechanic without actually interfering with the play of the character to any great extent.

There are times when I think the D&D designers approach alignment in this way... and I'm not entirely sure that it's a bad way to go.

Cheers!

You've just described almost exactly how I use the alignment system. It's just a simple, common sense approach that doesn't interfere with the fun of the game.

 

[fusangite]

Here's how I handle it:

The players start the campaign with certain alignments written on their character sheets.

They get to act as they choose during the game sessions.

Between the sessions, I change (if needed) their alignments to match their actions.

Simple.

Only if you find alignment coherent sufficiently coherent to do that. This is certainly how D&D is supposed to work by the letter of the rules but don't you find goals-actions conflicts problematic?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, fusangite, only you do.

 

[shilsen]

Only if you find alignment coherent sufficiently coherent to do that. This is certainly how D&D is supposed to work by the letter of the rules but don't you find goals-actions conflicts problematic?

Not really. The way I see it, a character's alignment is the result of a mixture, not a formula, with actions and goals as the components. To use an analogy, it's a little like Charisma, which includes components as diffuse and disparate as physical appearance, persuasiveness, leadership quality, and force of personality. All of which combine to create a Cha score.

As long as I'm explicit about why I think a character has a particular alignment and consistent in my bases for judgement, I don't think players would have issues with it, and thus far I really haven't had any. I seriously do think that alignment is much less of a problem than many players/DMs think it is, and that the problem lies more with application than the way it is described in the rules (though obviously the latter could be improved).

But I wouldn't go as far as Patryn

 

[Trickstergod]

From a mechanical standpoint that may work fine, but it also serves to make alignment essentially hollow as the words Good, Chaos and the like lose all meaning.

You may as well replace the alignments with those from HoL. The meaning would essentially be the same.