Alignments... the Ultimate Sacred Cow

[herald]

the only way to remove alignments is to remove religion.

get rid of the cleric class and the paladin.

emphasis placed on nature or elements instead.

You don't need alignments to play a cleric. In all honesty, you could tweek the Paladin to play with out it too.

 

[herald]

The problem I have with alignment is treating it as a force of nature, then trying to shoehorn everything into one of 4 categories: Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos. I like things to be a bit more stratified, so I've replaced alignment with the allegience system from d20 Modern. This allows me to retain most of the magical effects like "Protection from..." or "Magic Circle against..." or "Smite..." by substituting in the appropriate allegience, but gives me the flexibility to describe my world as I see fit.

This is what I'm going with.

 

[diaglo]

You don't need alignments to play a cleric. In all honesty, you could tweek the Paladin to play with out it too.

sure you can. but i think the inclusion of the cleric class is what added the whole alignment issue.

and the paladin being added to the mix in the Supplements just compounded the issue.

as more rules were added...these two classes in particular...also along with monks, assassins, barbarians, and druids....have made alignment more of an issue.

i happen to like clerics. i also happen to like alignment. i think it adds to the game.

but the thread starter does not. i was just pointing to things he would consider if he removed alignment.

 

[jester47]

Nothing good can come of this thread, you know.

Hong...

You rock!

 

[jester47]

The way I now work alignment is sort of like an astrological sign. Picking an alignment for your character essentially determines what his actions will eventually lead to. So someone who is LG is the tool of the forces of law and good. However, this does not in any way dictate his behevior. So he could be the most dispicable person on the planet. Just his actions will lead to greater law and good in the world, ultimately.

This allows for the idea of the best of intentions going very wrong, and keeps the mechanics of alignment intact. In fact it allows you to have generally good and evil races. It makes detection spells very interesting. Ok so he's an agent of Chaos and Evil, he could still be a nice and helpful person. Thus we get the realistic moral ambiguities, don't have to mess with the spell system, Paladins that are really nasty people, and the racial alignments can hold barring the occasional exception.

Thats how we use it. Thus a good character may take protection from good.

Aaron.

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

Alignments works fine, but there is a misconception that players get to choose their alignments. They don't. They might write one down, but the alignment they have is the one they role play.

Well said, Crothian!

As a DM, I just treat Alignment as another wrench in the toolbox.
When needed, it's handy for rare situations like giving a remedial kick-in-the-butt to grossly errant Clerics.
Mostly, though, that wrench stays in my toolbox.

As a player, I just play my character and reap what is sown.

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

Alignments works fine, but there is a misconception that players get to choose their alignments. They don't. They might write one down, but the alignment they have is the one they role play.

Well said, Crothian!

As a DM, I just treat Alignment as another wrench in the toolbox.
When needed, it's handy for rare situations like giving a remedial kick-in-the-butt to grossly errant Clerics.
Mostly, though, that wrench stays in my toolbox.

As a player, I just play my character and reap what is sown.

 

[Will]

Me, I like alignments, and find them easy to use.

'Ok, if someone ran screaming out into the street, would you go see how you can help, or get annoyed that they are interrupting your meal?
Do you know that laws and rules help protect us more than they hurt us, or are rules just a tool of oppression?'

I and friends have taken some of those 'what Alignment would you be' tests. Friends have gotten a variety, including some evil. In nearly every case, people nod and think it's accurate enough.

I think part of the problem is the test-extreme issue. People assume that in a scale with X options, the first and last options have to hit the edge of possibility. So 'good' must mean you are more saintly than everybody else, and 'evil' must mean you are a slavering serial killer who has a fondness for corpses. And I do mean fondness...

Good just means you are in a rough 1/3 of the population who falls on the side of altruism, and evil just means you are in the 1/3 that is somewhat callous.

 

[DragonLancer]

So you'd have to agree that it is possible to be a good Assassin.

Actually no. To use D&D terms, an Assassin is a rogue or rogue/assassin. The marine sniper is probably a fighter (or possibly a ranger).

The assassin is doing it for money, or just for fun. Thats an evil act (and no, I'm not saying adventurers who get paid to kill off goblins are evil).

 

[Crothian]

Actually no. To use D&D terms, an Assassin is a rogue or rogue/assassin. The marine sniper is probably a fighter (or possibly a ranger).

The assassin is doing it for money, or just for fun. Thats an evil act (and no, I'm not saying adventurers who get paid to kill off goblins are evil).

Actually, there is a good assassin class. The Slayer of Domiel prestige class from Book of Exhalted Deeds. The character has to be Lawful Good to take it.