(How) did you ditch alignment?

[barsoomcore]

No alignment in Barsoom, or in any game I've run for a long time. Don't see any use for it. No spells on Barsoom affect alignment (advantage of re-engineering your entire magic system from the ground up), so that's not a problem.

My bad guys tend to be more tragic than bad, anyway. Little kids what never got enough love, and therefore seek to consume the world in a firey apocalypse. I always end up feeling sorry for them.

 

[Doctor Bomb]

And then some

My players do not use alignment.
I do.
....
Alignment is not something the player chooses, like height or race or class. Rather, I assign alignment based on character actions. No single act will change alignment as the game progresses, but I keep track of behaviors, and adjust alignments accordingly.

Exactly, but I add a little mechanic to make it easier on me, as well as make it easier to integrate the far-flung aspects of my campaign world.

I added a slightly modified version of the Honor and Taint mechanics from OA. Character's give themselves an initial assessment based on the descriptions in the PHB, and I give them Honor (for lawfulness) and Taint (because none of us are free of sin) scores as a starting point. If the Honor score goes up, by keeping their word to NPC's, fulfilling contracts, telling the truth when it is against their best interest, etc. they become more lawful. If the Taint score goes up, by killing innocents, torturing, stealing from the not-so-rich, etc. then their alignment starts sliding to the dark side.

I give them periodic hints as to where they are headed, and give them warnings in the form of dire omens, prophesy, and rumors about their deeds to let them keep the alignments they started with. If they stray too far, I let them know about it, but there is no IMMEDIATE penalty for changing alignments, unless they are restricted by class.

If they tip the good-evil balance too far (Taint score greater than Level + Charisma mod = Evil, less than 1 by way of atonements, etc = Good) they gain the appropriate alignment descriptor, and suffer the consequences.
Ditto for the law-chaos balance (Honor greater than level = Lawful, less than Wisdom mod = Chaotic).

It works for me, and gives my guys real and abstract consequences for their actions.

 

[Galethorn]

I voted for 'something else'....

Instead of the two-dimensional good-evil/law-chaos system for alignments, I use the n-dimensional (I love that term) Alliegiance system from d20 modern/UA.

Basically, your character is dedicated to certain things, in a particular order. A knight might have the alliegiances the rightful king, the greater good, and the realm, which would mean they would put their service to the rightful king above the greater good, and the greater good above the realm, but all three would be above all other causes.

 

[davidschwartznz]

I voted 'We expand/complictate' and by 'we' I mean 'I'.

Actually, my current campaign is Grimm, so we're not using alignments (Kids are always good, sort of, and villains are always evil, sort of).

But, when I'm running a more typical D&D game (if you can call Maztica or Dark Sun typical), I have a handout I give to players which examines the alignments in terms of whether the character sees his philosophy as essential (as the world is) or ideal (as the world should be). Also, I break (true) neutral into two alignments - true neutral (animalistic, unaligned) and balanced neutral (catholic, multi-sided) (BTW druids can go either way). Also, you can be passive or active in either axis. It ends up looking like 20 different alignments, but even then it doesn't really tell you much about the character since, for example, an active Lawful Neutral essentialist could be a secular scientist or rabid fundamentalist - both believe in an unyeilding set of laws, both could take action that, while not malicious, may be viewed as inhumane.

In short, I see alignment in the way I look at any pop-psychological profile - it's useful for defining someone in a very limited angle of their personality. However, it's a typically fanatsy take (whether Morcockian or Arthurian) and therefore useful to D&D.

 

[velm]

I dont really like the idea of alignment. I have seen other people use it as a 'role playing' tool. If I have a character I will pretty much play them with a certain personality, most of the time it falls in the CG/NG range with a few LG tendencies sometimes. OMG! such a range. well, I see nothing wrong with being like that, so there.
So, you have character who is mostly NG but if they 'give their word' they will keep it. Lawful tendencies.
I have seen the arguements against deviating from the alignments in the older Core books. I saw some truth to them, but I just like the freedom to play as I feel with that character without the dm saying to me 'Velm is acting more NG recently than his stated CG, just an observation."

 

[Umbran]

I think I fall pretty close to Seeker95.

Unlike Seeker95, I allow players to dictate what alignment they are at the start of the game, indicating how they've behaved in the past. From that point on, I simply watch how they behave, and adjust their alignments if need be. After the start, they don't know their own alignments, except when something happens to interact with those alignments.

Unlike Seeker95, I don't put capital letters on at a specifc level. I put them on only if the character's actions and motivations call for them. It will usually take a few levels to earn capital letters, but not all higher level characters have them.

 

[JonnyReb]

I use something similar, but the affiliations are treated like feats, with accompanying benefits (enhanced spell DCs, increased effects from certain spells and abilities, "alignment" restricted spell lists) and restrictions (on character actions and the like).

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]

My players do not use alignment.
I do.

That's brilliant. (Seriously!) I'd like to do something like this in a campaign someday.

Jason

 

[John Morrow]

So, what have you used in your game and why did you change/keep it that way?

I use the traditional 9 alignments but set the baseline to Neutral (unless you are actively doing Good or Evil, you are Neutral) and add an aditional element -- whether a creature's alignment is a matter of nature, nurture, or both. Some creatures in my game are Evil by nature while others are Evil by choice. A creature that is Evil by choice can be reformed or redeemed. A creature that is Evil by nature cannot. A creature that's a bit of both will be difficult to reform or redeem but it's possible in some cases.

I kept the alignments in part because a lot of elements of D&D rely on it, in part because the concept of tangible and detectable Good and Evil work well in the genre, and in part becuase the idea of unredeemable Evil cratures allows an escapist level moral certainty that simply doesn't exist in the real world.

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.

It's certainly possible, however, to run a game without alignments. I've never used alignment in a non-D&D game and have my own problems with personality mechanics that rely on formal advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I find systems that requires specific advantages and disadvantages to be far more of a straitjacket than alignment is.

 

[Starman]

I use the core alignments, but I also use the Myers-Briggs personality types to get a more robust accounting of an individual's personality.

Dave

Oooh...I cast Detect INTJ!

I have run homebrews in the past where only outsiders from aligned planes had alignment. Generally, I am not a fan of alignment and I am very loose about it when I am using it in a game I am running.

Starman