Allegiances v. Alignment

[Gwaihir]

In the thread discussing Harry Potter alignments, the Allegiances system is listed as an alternative to Alignment.

Where can I find this? Can someone summarize how it works for me?

 

[CharlesRyan]

Introduced in d20 Modern.

 

[Klaus]

Too expand:

Choose up to three "Allegiances", which could be to a group, organization, nation, or an abstract concept like "Order", "Chaos", "Good" or "Evil". When you meet people with the same allegiance, you gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks and the like.

The D&D Alignment can easily be seen as a two-allegiance system, which must be the abstract concepts. So if you choose only "Good", you're NG. If you choose "Good" and "Order", you're LG. If you choose no allegiance, you'd be TN (but for old-school D&D you could add a "Balance" allegiance that made you actively TN).

 

[cmrscorpio]

Allegiances in d20 Modern

 

[delericho]

Choose up to three "Allegiances", which could be to a group, organization, nation, or an abstract concept like "Order", "Chaos", "Good" or "Evil". When you meet people with the same allegiance, you gain a +1 bonus on Diplomacy checks and the like.

+2 on Charisma-based skills (d20 Modern, p.37)

To be honest, the Allegiance system has always stuck me as rather redundant - given that so many characters use Cha as a 'dump stat', and since so few bother assigning ranks to Cha based skills (except perhaps Intimidate), those bonuses seem rather too low to be of much significance.

Just IMO, of course, but I find d20 Modern runs (slightly) better without.

 

[Flynn]

I personally prefer Allegiances to Alignment, but I recognize that's just a personal preference.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Klaus]

+2 on Charisma-based skills (d20 Modern, p.37)

To be honest, the Allegiance system has always stuck me as rather redundant - given that so many characters use Cha as a 'dump stat', and since so few bother assigning ranks to Cha based skills (except perhaps Intimidate), those bonuses seem rather too low to be of much significance.

Just IMO, of course, but I find d20 Modern runs (slightly) better without.

I like Allegiances, specially if you use them as an increasing order of priority.

Say you have a cop. His Allegiances are Law, Police Department, Good. So he upholds the Law, but he's willing to circumvent it in the defense of the Police Department (say, to protect fellow cops who planted an evidence on a known criminal to arrest him). But he won't protect the Police Department if it's against the greater Good (he won't protect a death squad). It might be read as Law < Police Dept. < Good.

 

[delericho]

I like Allegiances, specially if you use them as an increasing order of priority.

Say you have a cop. His Allegiances are Law, Police Department, Good. So he upholds the Law, but he's willing to circumvent it in the defense of the Police Department (say, to protect fellow cops who planted an evidence on a known criminal to arrest him). But he won't protect the Police Department if it's against the greater Good (he won't protect a death squad). It might be read as Law < Police Dept. < Good.

That works... but I'm curious why there's a need for a system to codify this? Given that the mechanical adjustments are the same for each alliegance, and there's no penalty for going against an alliegance, other than losing the alliegance...

 

[Flynn]

That works... but I'm curious why there's a need for a system to codify this? Given that the mechanical adjustments are the same for each alliegance, and there's no penalty for going against an alliegance, other than losing the alliegance...

I introduced a small XP bonus at the end of the session, based on whether or not someone acted in accordance with one of their allegiances over the course of the session. I go around the table and ask each person to state one thing that they've done and the allegiance that it supports. It's a frequent reminder that priorities exist, and in order to play one's character, one must act based on the priorities they have selected.

It's not official, but it works for me.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Celebrim]

My suspicion is that for the most part, people who are unhappy with alignment are going to be unhappy with any system which places an implicit limitation on player behavior if there is any possibility of there being a penalty involved for foresaking these limitations.

Happiness with Allegiances over alignments I suspect probably involves more of 'there is no penalty' than 'this is a much better system'.

Are people really limited to three allegiances? Are heirachies of allegiences really clear cut?

For example, suppose I have allegiances 'Law', 'Police Department', and 'Good'.... where does self-interest come into that? Will I always sacrifice self-interest in favor of those three? How about other allegiances, say, 'Nation' or 'Family'? Don't abstract allegiances differ significantly from concrete ones, and is the whole system any less relative than alignments? For example, a broad allegiance like 'Humanity' or 'Earth' is so vague as to be meaningless outside of a sci-fi campaign where something is meaningfully not human or of the Earth.

I don't think you really solve anything with regards to allegiances except to give some assurance to people who've been burned by bad DMing that you aren't trying to screw them over.