How about alignment?

[pemerton]

In some older editions, changing alignment meant losing a level. A serious penalty for "character personality". Likewise, LG paladins have always had harsh penalties for alignment mistakes--but other PCs generally weren't supposed to.

The AD&D DMG had rules for clerics who changed gods - which could be related to changing alignment. Three changes and you were struck down, I believe!

 

[Khaalis]

I want Alignment to be a Modular set of rules. I assume default will remain the classic D&D 9 Alignments, but I want options. Personally I prefer the d20 modern Allegiances system or Fantasy Craft's alignments (which is similar in concept to Allegiances).

 

[Nivenus]

As I've stated earlier in other threads, my personal favorite would be to have the nine traditional alignments alongside unaligned (perhaps with the latter presumed to be the default).

I'd also like to see the "neutral" removed from "Lawful Neutral," "Chaotic Neutral," "Neutral Good," and "Neutral Evil," because I think in the end it confuses people more than it helps. Lawful or Chaotic characters shouldn't feel like they have to constantly juggle between being good and evil all the time; they just have a different priority than Good or Evil characters.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a fan of the nine alignments. That's just one of those for me, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If I had to choose another system, I would go for no alignments.

I know other players hated it, which is okay. Different tastes for everyone around.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Alignment is one of the few things that I think 4E absolutely did wrong and was one of the first things I house ruled. There are 9 alignments and that is something that should not change. Especially if it's only because WotC wanted 4E to mirror it's miniature game.

 

[pemerton]

There are 9 alignments and that is something that should not change. Especially if it's only because WotC wanted 4E to mirror it's miniature game.

The game originally had 3 alignments, not 9. I thought that 4e was harking back to the original law vs chaos spectrum.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I prefer the AD&D 9 alignments and the unaligned option. I'd like it complete with mechanical effects on the game including spells, class abilities and class restrictions.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I want d20 Modern Allegiances with mechanical effects-- like mandatory Allegiances for certain character types, things for Paladins to smite. Maybe even a built-in Aspect affect like in FATE where characters acting in accordance with their Allegiances get more use out of action points.

 

[pemerton]

I want d20 Modern Allegiances with mechanical effects-- like mandatory Allegiances for certain character types, things for Paladins to smite.

4e handles paladin smites in a different way - paladins do a fair bit of radiant damage, and radiant damage is especially bad for undead.

Rolemaster use to have something intermediate between the 4e approach and the "smite evil" approach - paladins could do "holy damage", which was especially bad for undead and demons.

Do either of those options work for you as a "smite evil" substitute?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Not particularly. I'm one of the flexible Paladin guys-- I'd like to see Paladins of any alignment, with the ability to smite enemies opposed to that alignment. And, as much as I like 3x3, I'd like to see other alignment axes introduced as optional rules as well.

Maybe even something that could approximate my alignment.