Yora
Legend
Why was Allegiance only an obscure optional rule in d20 Modern? It's so much better and interesting than alignment, and adds a lot more to a character.
Alignments anyone?
- Thread starter Vincent Blackwater
- Start date
I have a bit mixed feelings about alignments but I like them. Of all the things the player writes down on a character sheet, nothing provides more incentive for an adventure design as alignment.
Most of the PCs are LG? Hmmm, perhaps I have to ditch cloak 'n dagger stuff... Or are they mostly CN? Apparently it's better not to write too much, they are too unpredictable. etc. etc.
Of course a detailed description of personalities and goals would work much better, but in reality very few descriptions give the same insight to the basic nature of a PC as the alignment.
Most of the PCs are LG? Hmmm, perhaps I have to ditch cloak 'n dagger stuff... Or are they mostly CN? Apparently it's better not to write too much, they are too unpredictable. etc. etc.
Of course a detailed description of personalities and goals would work much better, but in reality very few descriptions give the same insight to the basic nature of a PC as the alignment.
Zelda Themelin
First Post
I use them. But players can change when game progress without any problems. I kinda expect them to stick into it as part of their personality, that doesn't change unless there is reason. I usually ban paladins etc. anyhow. Mainly because one player in my group wants to play them as excuse being ass.
I use alignment based magic things, and detect-spells work etc.
Alignment makes it easier as Jon_Dahl stated before me to choose way to motive players to go for some adventure. I know if they want to play heroic fools or mercenery types or criminals or cultists etc. Alignment tells part of that, not everything, but if you put that and character class and chosen god (or not) into line, I usually get idea.
I don't ban evil or chaotic. I just want that players are mostly on same page. I could run pvp games but since that's not what they really want, I want to minimize their reasons to hate each others from bigger reasons like general world view/religion. That never ends well. Alignment is first clue to what is not going to work well as party. Same goes for "anti-classes" ake those opposing specific other classes (forsakers and the like).
Also if people write down CN I ask what are their defining personality qualities. I also tell them it's not same as insane, neither is neutral obsessed with balance. If they want those things they are part of those other personality qualities. I usually get things like out for myself, and my best pals at the moment, and greed, and in some cases some rebellion inticing idealogies. But that could be N or CG or NE or even CE. Alignment tells better how far character usually goes to get what he wants and how nasty it usually gets.
I always liked palladium alignment better. It actually gave some insight to that do/don't do this part. Not perfect but some much better defined than D&D ever. Too bad naming there was bit "unprincibled srubulous" .... or how was that spelt. That's reason to like D&D alignment better, unfortunaly.
I use alignment based magic things, and detect-spells work etc.
Alignment makes it easier as Jon_Dahl stated before me to choose way to motive players to go for some adventure. I know if they want to play heroic fools or mercenery types or criminals or cultists etc. Alignment tells part of that, not everything, but if you put that and character class and chosen god (or not) into line, I usually get idea.
I don't ban evil or chaotic. I just want that players are mostly on same page. I could run pvp games but since that's not what they really want, I want to minimize their reasons to hate each others from bigger reasons like general world view/religion. That never ends well. Alignment is first clue to what is not going to work well as party. Same goes for "anti-classes" ake those opposing specific other classes (forsakers and the like).
Also if people write down CN I ask what are their defining personality qualities. I also tell them it's not same as insane, neither is neutral obsessed with balance. If they want those things they are part of those other personality qualities. I usually get things like out for myself, and my best pals at the moment, and greed, and in some cases some rebellion inticing idealogies. But that could be N or CG or NE or even CE. Alignment tells better how far character usually goes to get what he wants and how nasty it usually gets.
I always liked palladium alignment better. It actually gave some insight to that do/don't do this part. Not perfect but some much better defined than D&D ever. Too bad naming there was bit "unprincibled srubulous" .... or how was that spelt. That's reason to like D&D alignment better, unfortunaly.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I honestly don't know.
Maybe it's because the Allegiance concept was a mostly non-mechanical part of the system. One without mechanical effects or consequences within the system, was purely subjective (but is meant to be so), and only supports "roleplaying". But I'm only guessing. I'm sure there are a lot of personal reasons why Allegiance never really took off with a larger portion of the D20 fans. The relative level of success (sales) compared to standard D&D may have something to do with it also.
The 9 Alignment System has mechanical effects and consequences, has clear cut gamist elements, and is relatively simple to adjudicate. It also does work as a narrativist aspect, but only if one accepts the alignment system as a real constant of the game worlds cosmology...and that's hard for some to do. But I think the real problem is in making a mechanical rules system out of something that is effectively a personal, subjective thing. On paper, adjudication seems easy. In practice, because of the unacknowledged subjective aspects, tends to get a bit sticky. (IMO)
Personally, I love the D20 Modern Allegiance concept. It's basically what I use in my D&D games.
Psion
Adventurer
I run with alignments, 9 of them, when I run D&D (to include PF ). To me, a central identifying them of the D&D metasetting is the cosmic struggle between good and evil, in which all characters are pawns and their ethos and loyalty has a tangible effect on the world.
I can (and currently am) run games in which alignment is only for outsiders, or is only personal ethos. But when I say I want to run/play D&D, that's not what I want.
I can (and currently am) run games in which alignment is only for outsiders, or is only personal ethos. But when I say I want to run/play D&D, that's not what I want.
The Red King
First Post
I use them in my campaign, but only use them as a guideline unless you are playing a palidin or cleric and you need to keep your god happy.
MGibster
Legend
I haven't run a game of D&D since 2003, but I used alignment. in D&D, good, evil, chaos and law and palpable forces in the universe and a great number of spells and special abilities reflect this. I don't recall having any differences of opinions on how alignments work since 2nd edition. i.e. I never had players slaughter baby orcs and argue that it was a good act.
Other games use alignment systems. Pendragon has personality traits that take the place of alignment. Players can even lose control of their character when they roll against a trait and succeed.
Other games use alignment systems. Pendragon has personality traits that take the place of alignment. Players can even lose control of their character when they roll against a trait and succeed.
I tried making a variant using personality traits, since I'm dissatisfied with alignment.
Yeah, when it comes to describing spells such as blasphemy, it's fine. When it comes to describing your character, it stops being fine. The subjective problems and the degree of it restricting the player notwithstanding.
Using alignments for outsiders only is a good solution, since it allows the alignment system to keep what it's best at while solving the roleplay problems. However, there has to be a way to note how does one roleplay the character, to keep the roleplay consistent.
Yeah, when it comes to describing spells such as blasphemy, it's fine. When it comes to describing your character, it stops being fine. The subjective problems and the degree of it restricting the player notwithstanding.
Using alignments for outsiders only is a good solution, since it allows the alignment system to keep what it's best at while solving the roleplay problems. However, there has to be a way to note how does one roleplay the character, to keep the roleplay consistent.
I do find it interesting that many people call alignment restrictive to the player...when it's a guideline for how his character interacts with the world, that THEY chose.
And it doesn't stop them from doing whatever they want in character, as long as they are aware of the in game implications*. "What do you mean the holy mace of goodness sears my hand when I pick it up?"
*I know, the problem arises when the DM and the player have different views on what constitues what type of act, but that is part of the social contract, not an alignment problem...could happen in any scenario of the game..."What do you mean I can't swim upstream all day...DnD doesn't have fatigue rules"
And it doesn't stop them from doing whatever they want in character, as long as they are aware of the in game implications*. "What do you mean the holy mace of goodness sears my hand when I pick it up?"
*I know, the problem arises when the DM and the player have different views on what constitues what type of act, but that is part of the social contract, not an alignment problem...could happen in any scenario of the game..."What do you mean I can't swim upstream all day...DnD doesn't have fatigue rules"
Last edited:
Similar Threads
