(How) did you ditch alignment?

[Li Shenron]

Just a poll to quantify a little how many groups are using the 9 traditional alignments or eventually changed them

I think most of the groups are still using the two axis as in the books, Good-Neutral-Evil and Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic, but many others seem to have either changed something or outright abandoned the rigid distinction between alignments. So, what have you used in your game and why did you change/keep it that way?

For the record, we have basically always used the two axis normally, but I look forward to run an alignment-free or alignment-light campaign.

 

[Dog Moon]

G and E matter, L and C don't...

My group technically uses the alignments in the PHB, but it doesn't mean we really follow them. We follow the G and E alignments much closely than the L and C alignments. I'm not sure if it's because G and E are easier to differentiate than L or C, but that's basically what occurs. L is almost practically ignored unless the characters play a Paladin and C is used only when combined with N so the player can have his PC do whatever he wants since he's CN, but he isn't quite E. I've been tempted to ditch alignments because of this. I know that at one point, we decided that Detect Alignment only determined what the character was thinking at the time [though mainly because we had an E character and a paladin in the same group], but that didn't go over very well. In my group, since we don't tend to play alignment closely [not on purpose, I like to think], we could easily get rid of it since the only thing we use it for is Pro. Evil, Good, Law, or Chaos and Detect Evil, Good, Law, or Chaos and other similar spells/abilities. Still, it does help to characterize the character somewhat, even if the character does not completely follow what his alignment says.

 

[Stone Dog]

I just use this.

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/msrd/msrdallegiances.rtf

It is a handy way to just jot down what a character believes in and is motivated by.

 

[ptolemy18]

I haven't DMed a D&D campaign in awhile, but for my current campaign -- set in a really modified and weirded-out historical Egypt (yaay EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES!) -- I'm not using alignments.

I just decided that it was too impossible to rationalize anything like "realistic" politicking and human immorality using the conventional alignment system. Not that I'm being cynical -- I just didn't want to have to answer questions like "Is the Roman Empire good or evil?" I wanted to run a game where players fought for their religion & country (or just for themselves), not necessarily for "good" or "evil" in the abstract sense.

So far, it's going okay, although predictably a sort of split has developed between the "more good" and "more evil" player-characters.

I *am* using spells like Detect Evil, but they only detect supernatural beings that are "obviously" evil (like demons), so they're not as useful. For spells like Holy Smite, on the other hand, I'm basically playing them like "Smite Enemy" or "Smite Heathen", so in a sense they're better than they are in an alignment-based system.

I'm not using the whole "alignment-based damage reduction" from 3.5... this has been the biggest rules obstacle to ditching alignments, actually. I wish they hadn't "hardwired" alignment into the weapon rules this way (although of course it was already hardwired in a lot of other places).

Jason

 

[djinni]

I use core alignment rules for purposes of special magic items, etc. but more important for me as GM is two adjectives description of character eg. mysterious (likes keeping secrets about himself), righteous. This way there are no limits for a character description (this can by any adjective), and limiting to two words gives clear objectives for role-playing. Traditional alignment is matched to this by me, GM, not the player, to not cloud the vision (sometimes I don't use normal alignment at all).

This system is based on old SAGA (DragonLance: Fifth Age) - generally one of my favourite mechanics, good for loose, narrative rpg.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

I answered "something else."

Most characters and monsters don't have alignment in our game. Creatures with alignment subtypes retain them, so there's still some use for detect x and protection from x spells, and alingment-based weapons are less useful, but not entirely useless.

Alignment as written is just to silly an abstraction for my tastes. I thinks that its great for new players and there's nothing wrong with keeping it, but it's no longer the most interesting part of the game for me.

 

[Tonguez]

No Alignment whatsoever

Spells affect 'Descriptor type' (and as per the Spell description)

 

[Romnipotent]

I dont always use it but the sub group idea always found me well
you have your core actions in a alignment
like CG
then you may also just side with the law when it suits, or because its the good thing to do... see exalted good.
then you may also be REALLY good... so you act good a lot
so the core alignment is CG/L/G meaning what I said above.

LN/E/C: Lawful neutral a twinkle of evil in decisions, and occasional bursts of ... MONKEY IN PANTS DANCE ALL NIGHT

 

[Nifft]

No Alignment whatsoever

Spells affect 'Descriptor type' (and as per the Spell description)

Likewise. --N

 

[Aesmael]

Core alignment rules, although in the wider scope of the campaign setting I am trying to put a greater emphasis on Law/Chaos than Good/Evil in part because so many seem to say that they treat them with the reverse emphasis. (So, Dog Moon2003 and everyone like you, I suppose I should say thanks for the inspiration)

The alignment system is a large part of the quantisation that attracted me to D&D in the first place. It seems so odd to be able to say 'This person is Good, that one is Evil and the fellow over there, he is both Lawful and Evil,' in other areas I almost never even consider characters with that sort of perspective.

So, to sum it up: Me like alignment. Fun change from sea of grey normally lived in. No intention to ditch except on temporary basis.