Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6189426" data-attributes="member: 22424">Firstly: which edition? Because, as noted, alignment has become less of an issue as the editions have gone on.Anyway, for me, and from a 3e-perspective:1) I would start by giving them a quick overview of the alignments. Mine is below, but I certainly don't claim it's definitive:Lawful: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That is, people are better as an organised view, and you should aim for the best outcome for the most people even if that means compromising the preferences of a minority.Chaotic: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. That is, people are best as individuals, and nobody has the right to impose themselves on another.Good: You first, me second. That is, an altruistic approach - the Good character will sacrifice himself for the benefit of others.Evil:{/i] Me first, you second. The reverse - the Evil character is interested in his own benefit and his own pleasure, and will sacrifice others for it.Neutral: This one's a bit tricky. It can either be a 'weak' Neutral, which is basically either apathy or inaction, or a 'strong' Neutral where the character is concerned to strike a balance between the two extremes.And then, of course, you combine two or more elements to generate a 'complete' alignment.(Incidentally, on the face of it it looks like Lawful Evil is inherently contradictory by the definitions above. This is somewhat true. But, in general, the LE character will try to build a strong, efficient, and heirarchical society... that just happens to put himself right on the top.)2) I would then proceed to almost completely ignore alignment for any character that doesn't have an alignment restriction. If need be, I would quietly change their alignment to match their observed behaviour, but don't make an issue of it.3) For classes who do have alignment restrictions, if I saw the player drifting to an illegal alignment, I would have a quiet word with him/her after the first session in which it happens... then again a couple of sessions later... and if they persist after that then change the alignment and apply the appropriate rules for the character. After all, they've chosen that alignment by their actions, so it's done.All that said...I'm now leaning towards getting rid of alignment restrictions altogether, in which case every character would fall under #2.The exception to this would be the Paladin, who wouldn't have an alignment restriction as such, but would be required to declare an oath. This would have to be phrased as a handful (4-8) relatively general clauses about who he is and what he's about. My sample oath comes from "Dragonheart":i) A knight is sworn to valourii) His heart knows only virtueiii) His blade defends the helplessiv) His might upholds the weakv) His word speaks only truthvi) His wrath undoes the wicked.Thereafter, the character would be expected to hold to his code. However, being human, it's likely he won't do so perfectly. Therefore:- If the character grossly violates any one aspect of his code, such as by deliberately attacking a helpless innocent, then the character immediately falls, and must seek atonement just as if he'd deliberately changed alignment.- If the character commits a minor infraction against any aspect of the code, even if it was done involuntarily (that is, it includes if he is dominated into doing so!), then I would put a mark by that clause of the code. But for now, there are no ill effects. (And if the clause is already marked, then there is no other effect.)However, if the paladin ever gets to the point where he has a mark against all six clauses, then he again falls, and must seek out atonement to regain his status as a paladin.(One other thing: I wouldn't allow the paladin to seek atonement to remove the marks for minor infractions until he has fallen. My gut feeling is that allowing this would make it just a bit too easy for the paladin.)I think this should work reasonably well. The character is still recognisably within the "knight in shining armour" archetype of the Paladin (and, indeed, by adjusting the oath the DM can create some very different types of Paladin), and also has a clear guide as to what he should and should not be doing. Plus, because the oath is broken into sub-clauses, the Paladin gets a pretty clear warning if he starts to sail close to the edge.But... I do have to note that I haven't tried this last one out in an actual game, so it's possible it might not work at all!</blockquote>

Verification