Alignment vs. Allegiance

[Aspect of Veles]

I was inspired by Tarionzcousin's thread discussing alignments in 4E, but decided my post would be more fitted to its own thread.

I was one of the people upset by the reduction of the alignment list, but decided to flow with it for a while.

When I started my new campaign, however, I decided to take another look at it, and eventually just scrapped alignments all together, instead going with an idea partially influenced by an article in an old issue of Dragon, Allegiance.

In my opinion many players feel constrained by their alignment, feeling that they fit into a strict code they know nothing of (at least many of my players), and so many new players, or players with a less role-playing oriented focus, tend to gravitate towards Unalgined in the new edition. My solution was to allow them to build their own code in their heads, but require them to vow allegiance to one power or another, and therefore roughly follow the mandates of that culture while setting out a moral system of their own.

Of course there are characters who do not 'throw in their chips' with any power, but they are not generally trusted, and are considered somewhat of outcasts in civilized society.

This isn't meant as a 'fix' for 4E alignments, simply another take on character morality. It's worked splendidly through two months of gaming in a very politically driven world, but may not work so well with a group of newer or less involved players.

 

[Mika]

Allegiances are part of d20 Modern, and I am pretty sure that you should be able to find its SRD with a quick Google search. Every alignment except True Neutral/Unaligned can be covered by Allegiances to some combination of Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law. Allegiances to organizations and other abstract principles are also possible. You can pick up to three Allegiances, and you assign them in order of priority (so somebody with Allegiances to Good, Law has slightly different motivations than somebody with Allegiances to Law, Good). You should be able to assign some sort of Allegiance to every character -- everybody has SOMETHING that motivates him, and a character's Allegiance is to whatever that is.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have considered having everyone do the '10 rules' concept that was introduced way back in the 'paladin for every alignment' days.

Do you have something similar as a guideline?

 

[Umbran]

In my opinion many players feel constrained by their alignment, feeling that they fit into a strict code they know nothing of (at least many of my players), and so many new players, or players with a less role-playing oriented focus, tend to gravitate towards Unalgined in the new edition.

I am a bit surprised that players feel constrained by alignment in 4e, when for PCs alignment has no mechanical impact in the game.

That's not an argument against using Allegiances, of course - if anything it is an argument against alignment as presented in D&D. Some folks don't need or want alignments, but others find having some structure to frame what they do aids creativity in that arena. The current D&D version is a nice rule-of-thumb for the GM, but it does nothing for the player.

In that sense, some form of Allegiances are a reasonable replacement.

 

[Aspect of Veles]

I have considered having everyone do the '10 rules' concept that was introduced way back in the 'paladin for every alignment' days.

Sorry, I actually don't know what you're talking about. I made the odd jump straight from 1st (with a little 2nd) into 4th.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The basic concept is that each 'paladin' has its own code, but instead of being loosly defined as 'be lawful good', the player comes up with 10 rules. something like what was talked about on this Old thread here

Erevan's Code of Conduct
-must be chaotic good in alignment
-must pray at midnight (incl. drinking a glass of wine in his honour, and to get spells)
-help those in need, so long as it is not for lawful or evil ideals
-never worship or pray for Erevan Ilesere in the same place (if you are in a prison or otherwise held in one place for long periods against your will, you must try to escape until your death, less that dishonour you)
-be ever-loyal to you fellow elves (not Drow) and sylvan creatures and help protect those places where they dwell (esp. forested areas)
-whenever a situation occurs where it seems as the hand of Erevan has played a role, drink a glass of wine in his honour (this may include feats of spectacular luck, etc)
-respect personal liberty, no matter what the race or creed, except those who are overtly evil or lawful or those who break a part of your code of honour

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I think the "alignments too restrictive" idea is because people always think of, say, a Sturm Brightblade type for LG (even though that beer-chugging, battle-loving dwarf fighter is also LG). Allegiances seem to be even MORE restrictive than alignments (greater choice, but each choice covers a narrower band of activity). Your players' characters might have sets of beliefs that they THINK don't fall under specific alignments but probably do.

If alignment holds any import in your campaign, you could collect their characters' belief systems and assign them the alignments that they fall under, then use that (with or without the player knowing their character's alignment).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IME, the 'alignment is too restrictive' is more about the problem of not really defining alignment into a concrete code of action/inaction.. which results in the GM imposing his/her concept of the alignment over what the player thought was the alignment.

I moved away from alignments when Eberron hit the bookshelves, but still think that any character that derives thier abilities through divine favor should have a distinct code to follow. The favor wanes if the character treads too far away.