Do you find Alignments useful in your games???

[I'm A Banana]

What about keeping alignments from players altogether and keep a DM only record of them? Would this possibly work?

I do this in my own games.

The players generally choose which alignment they want to try to play, and usually stick pretty close to it.

But I am the final arbiter, when it comes down to it. If the self-described Chaotic Good wizard isi willing to compromise for the power of magic, and persues a directed and consistent daily regimen, I'm not going to feel too bad about saying "Sorry, you're lawful neutral."

Also, make sure that alignment isn't a judgement of the character's actions. As long as they work with the group, who cares if they're evil? As long as they enjoy playing their character, big deal that they're not freedom-loving, ne? There's nothing WRONG with any way of playing...each just has it's own problems and benefits (good characters generally do things for the RIGHT reasons, while Evil characters are free to be selfish and cruel, but can't be assured of sleeping someplace at night because of them pissing off most people).

If your players want to be a particular alignment, advise them, but don't force anything. If they're generally neutral and they're sticking out their neck for the Good, be sure to let 'em know. There's no PENALTY for alignment change, nothing wrong in having a change of heart and philosophy.

Yeah. Basically, I enjoy the interesting complexities alignment introduces, toying with expectations, reveling in ambiguities. IMHO, having alignment increases the player's awareness and conciousness of how it affects their characters...letting them know that they'll be defined and held accountable for their character choices in mechanical terms makes them acutely aware of how their characters are acting. And it often gives a lot of aide to those playing characters significantly different from their selves.

 

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

Aligments work beautifully in campaigns where morality is dictated by either the very nature of the universe or by divine powers. In such campaigns, problems only arise when the DM has not successfully educated the players about what actions are appropriate for a given ethos.

Alignments do not work well in campaigns where morality is relative and defined by society (and there are societies that disagree). I prefer running the latter sort of campaign. Others prefer the first. However, in either case, the DM needs to make it clear what sort of behavior is expected of heroic (or villainous) characters as determined by the morality system the DM has chosen for the campaign.

Personally, I think that keeping alignments secret doesn't make much sense. If all it take is a Detect Evil spell to determine alignment, why keep it secret? If the effects of magic spells depend on the alignment of a character, then alignment is not an invisible quantity just implemented as a roleplaying aid.

- Kusuf

 

[Kichwas]

I've only ever found them a difficulty.

They seem to have no real impact on play, and it's very hard to get consensus on their meanings.

As far as I can tell, they exist only to give people something to argue about.

They are of zero help in aiding roleplay, being too broad a descriptor with which to base a personality.

They are too vaguely defined and too steeped into ethics and politics to be used as a valid means of gauging actions. Players are very likely to fail to agree with each other over the ethos of any morally complex activity. Especially if you have players from diverse backgrounds, social classes, nationalities, or cultures.

All they ever do is form arguments.

If it was up to me, they would become an 'optional variant rule' in 3.1 coming out later this year, and get phased out by 4.0 coming out whenever WotC decides 3.x isn't making enough cash for it's staff and printing budgets anymore...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because you can somewhat see a corallary with it in the real world...if morality is absolute in the real world, nobody ever truely knows where they stand in it without using somebody else's definition of it (which could potentially be flawed).

So the city of the lizardfolk may say that sacrificing people is Good and Pure and Right. And the PC's have no idea if this is defined as truly good or not. It forces them to evaluate their own good, and how they define good, and has them rationalize why they view good as what it is, and how they're going to preserve it in the face of something which, to them, isn't.

Also, detect evil only reveals things that are actually powered by evil...so evil clerics, evil outsiders, etc. People who simply happen to have the evil alignment aren't revealed by it, so it's no sure-fire way of determining alignment.

Alignment can be an invisible quality. When a PC picks up an item of sacred power and is burned by it is it because they are Good? Evil? Neutral? If *detect evil* reveals nothing, it is because it's not powered by evil, or perhaps because somebody cloaked it?

In this way, you can have a world that determines things on a relative basis, but is still affected and influenced by absolute forces. You can have a world where Good and Evil don't equal Right and Wrong. You can have alignments that are forces, but that are indeterminate forces...PC's can never know for sure what side they are on. This, IMXP, encourages them to make a choice, and stick with it, rather than trying to force themselves to act a way that has been predetermined to be "right."

 

[Umbran]

But I am the final arbiter, when it comes down to it. If the self-described Chaotic Good wizard isi willing to compromise for the power of magic, and persues a directed and consistent daily regimen, I'm not going to feel too bad about saying "Sorry, you're lawful neutral."

If you are going to keep thgem informed, then you ought to feel a little bad. With a long-term average, one rarely makes such a large shift in one step. Instead, one goes through several states along the way - from CG to NG to N to LN, for example. If you are going to make a policy of keeping them informed, you ought to do it with each significant step.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I have another question for you all.

Has anybody devised a system where you could have a scale of sorts, ranging from 0-10 or something similar along the various axis the alignments bring into effect. Something like this (and this is hypothetical right now):

Good 0-10
Evil 0-10
Law 0-10
Chaos 0-10

Does this make sense?

I kinda figure that if there was this scale and people were truly with a particular alignment then their ratings within these would be higher than somebody that is lower on the scale in some of these, which would probably constitute a more neutral character. Or would this just be another cumbersome game mechanic that would cause arguments and would it be not worth perusing after?

Heck, the DM wouldn't even have to tell the players about this and can make his own judgement calls and dictate alignments from this. Who knows, would this work?

 

[Maerdwyn]

I have another question for you all.

Has anybody devised a system where you could have a scale of sorts, ranging from 0-10 or something similar along the various axis the alignments bring into effect.

Yup, and I like it a lot

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9077

Edit - if you use something like this as a DM-only tool, dispense with the rolls, and just use your judgement to move characters along the two axes

 

[Paradoxish]

I have another question for you all.

Has anybody devised a system where you could have a scale of sorts, ranging from 0-10 or something similar along the various axis the alignments bring into effect. Something like this (and this is hypothetical right now):

I don't know if I'd really call it a full fledged system, but I do something similiar to that (although my scale is from 0-20). My players aren't even aware that I use it, it's primarily a tool for me as a DM. Players choose alignments as normal and I place them on the scale based on their description of their character's general attitude. For example, a Paladin character who wholly believes in the principals of good, chivalry, and the righteousness of the law might be Evil 0, Chaos 0, Good 20, Lawful 20. On the other hand, a Chaotic Good rogue who generally does whatever he sees fit (including stealing), but also values life and is willing to sometimes help those in need might be Evil 6 (he does steal), Chaos 15, Good 14, Law 5.

Whichever of the two axes are higher is what the character's "official" alignment is. Equal represents neutral, which is good since I like to maintain that it's difficult to remain neutral for long. Their in-game actions will move each value up and down and I'll warn the players if they're approaching an alignment shift. This is just my system, though. I'll admit it's very crude, but since I use it as a tool instead of an actual game mechanic it works just fine for me.

 

[Umbran]

Who knows, would this work?

That depends. What work are you trying to get it to do?

If the numeric score is not actually relevant to anything, then I'm not likely to see such a rule system to be worth the effort. Especially with a thing as subjective as alignment, you'd probably want a compelling reason to bother trying to put a number on it.

 

[Kusuf ibn Zaid]

Because you can somewhat see a corallary with it in the real world...if morality is absolute in the real world, nobody ever truely knows where they stand in it without using somebody else's definition of it (which could potentially be flawed).

So the city of the lizardfolk may say that sacrificing people is Good and Pure and Right. And the PC's have no idea if this is defined as truly good or not. It forces them to evaluate their own good, and how they define good, and has them rationalize why they view good as what it is, and how they're going to preserve it in the face of something which, to them, isn't.

Also, detect evil only reveals things that are actually powered by evil...so evil clerics, evil outsiders, etc. People who simply happen to have the evil alignment aren't revealed by it, so it's no sure-fire way of determining alignment.

Alignment can be an invisible quality. When a PC picks up an item of sacred power and is burned by it is it because they are Good? Evil? Neutral? If *detect evil* reveals nothing, it is because it's not powered by evil, or perhaps because somebody cloaked it?

In this way, you can have a world that determines things on a relative basis, but is still affected and influenced by absolute forces. You can have a world where Good and Evil don't equal Right and Wrong. You can have alignments that are forces, but that are indeterminate forces...PC's can never know for sure what side they are on. This, IMXP, encourages them to make a choice, and stick with it, rather than trying to force themselves to act a way that has been predetermined to be "right."

This is certainly a viable and enjoyable way to handle morality in a campaign. However, what you are describing is not a relative morality system. It is an absolute morality system with incomplete knowledge. The average mortal isn't able to precisely determine their alignment. However, since morals are absolute, someone (or perhaps the universe itself) is keeping track.

- Kusuf