Alignment - the simple way

[Turjan]

I think a game mechanic has to represent something that makes sense, even if the meaning is highly abstracted, like in the hitpoint mechanic. If there is absolutely no meaning behind alignment, I don't need it *shrug*.

 

[Wombat]

I think a game mechanic has to represent something that makes sense, even if the meaning is highly abstracted, like in the hitpoint mechanic. If there is absolutely no meaning behind alignment, I don't need it *shrug*.

I'm willing to accept this position.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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.

I do the same, but I loosen the hell out of the class alignment restrictions so that alignment shift is less godawful obnoxious in play. (Also, because some of the restrictions don't make a lick of sense-- but that's a topic for another thread.)

 

[Willowhaunt]

Alignment as written: Easy and simple, works for most games. The problem being when you get classes like paladins, where certain actions break the unbelievably strict code: What, exactly, is lawful? Especially when military actions are concerned. Are Paladins allowed to use guerilla warfare? Would they not be paralyzed if the enemy took but a single hostage?

My favorite system is almost as simple, fits within the rules, and makes more sense from a flavor standpoint- In my games, patron diety=alignment. Detect evil scans for followers of gods that are listed as "evil" in the handbook (it's an FR campaign), and thus considered "evil" by whoever designed the detect evil spell. For a class with an alignment restriction, only the gods listed under those alignments offer training for that class at their temples and in their cities. That way, all of the gods can have their own "versions" of the same alignment. If player characters want to switch alignment, it's as simple as visiting the local temple of your new god and being initiated into their following.

That seems to work in my more talk/character/plot heavy campaigns, but that may be because I have a group that likes to nitpick the alignment system. I used the normal alignment system for years and didn't have any problems until I started running stuff for my current group, the kind of group that has members who love to browse the PHB when it's not their turn in combat so they can torment me with all the inconsistencies and unrealistic traditions of the fantasy genre.

Still, alignment is one of those things that isn't a big deal until you make it one, so I usually find myself agreeing with the posts at the top of the page...

-Willowhaunt

 

[jester47]

Looks like MerricB has been reading my posts again!

post #10:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=72453&highlight=alignment+astrological

post #35

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=77159&highlight=alignment+astrological

And my house rules!

Alignment: Alignment in this campaign works sort of like an astrological sign. Alignment has very little to do with character actions and more to do with the long-term effects of those actions. Thus the best of intentions can have catastrophic effects, and the vilest person in the world could be its savior. Alignment represents essentially how destiny will use the character. Think along the lines of the ultimate results of Gollum, or Elric of Melnibone. Basicly Alignment only determines what kind of protections and spells affect you, what prestige classes you can take and not how you behave. (DM)

 

[fusangite]

This is certainly how my games work when alignment is required. The alignment system is simply too internally contradictory to run any other way.

 

[Broken Druid]

Alignment really has nothing to do with the players, except as a jumping off point at the beginning of the game. After that point it is the DM's job to determine if the player is actually staying within the alignment or evolving into a different alignment. Whether or not (s)he informs the player of the changing alignment is up to the DM. After all, alignment is in the eye of the beholder, and it is the DM's eye that counts.

When I DM I have my players tell me what their starting alignment is, and the only time the subject ever raises its ugly head again is when alignment becomes an issue. I.e., the party meets a paladin, the party attempts to acquire a paladin as a PC or NPC, the cleric is using spells his/her deity would not like, or using spells in a way their deity would not like.

 

[MonsterMash]

A couple of interesting ideas here, I'll have to think a bit more about how I approach alignment as generally it's pretty much forgotten in my campaign, which is a pity to ignore it totally.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I like this idea of the character choosing to ally with certain cosmic forces (whether those forces actually respond or not). Heck even Conan was this close to abandoning Crom (a force of 'chaos')

Alignment is not something I pay much attention too really. I use it as a guage for NPC attitudes more than anything else (easier to assign typical behaviours to certain alignments for my NPCs and use the alignments as reminders of how people are going to act) and never force PCs to do actions just because it's what their alignment dictates.

 

[S'mon]

For my new campaign I've decided to use "alignment as a chosen allegiance" similar to the idea in the first post, and just use 3 Alignments - Law Neutrality & Chaos. This gives a nice Moorcockian/OD&D feel I think. I've always hated telling players "So you think you're LN, eh? In fact you're now NE..."