I hate alignment

[GravyFingerz]

Alignment is an old and archaic tyrannical straight jacket. In the day, when D&D was a wargame, it might have been necessary to keep your players acting in a consistant manner; but that was before method acting and storytelling were wide spread in a role playing game. I've known many people who don't like alignment, and many more who see it as a straight jacket instead of a guideline. Most people don't understand alignment enough to use it well; if we are going to dumb down D&D, we might as well remove alignment because of it's hard to grasp concept. Nowadays, most player's are actors instead of wargamers. Most people pick an alignment and base their character's personality around it instead of the other way around; besides being hard to grasp and a straigt jacket, it stunts a characters growth by limiting your actions.

Even worse, they've built more mechanics around it in 3rd edition. Detect alignment spells, alignment rebuking spells, weapons that deal special damage to those of a certain alignment; they've made it more integral to the system then it ever was back in 2nd, 1st, or basic editions of the game.

If you use alignment, you're shooting yourself in the face. It's lazy and confining at the same time. Instead of making a personality for a character or a non-player character, let's just assign an alignment; because you know, all Lawful Good people act the same. It's a crutch to the game. It's removal would simplify so many things and solve many problems. You wouldn't see all these newbs and evil wannabees with "neutral evil" on their character sheet. You think alignment is supposed to regulate them? Any competent DM worth his salt punishes evil PCs instead of whining about how they hate evil characters. IMHO, the most innovative system for alignment is the lack of one. I can only hope that the designers for 4th edition will have the good sense to slay this sacred cow.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

Another reason alignment is hard to base a character on is that people change as they grow, and gain life experiences. So a character would too. A character who starts off lawful good, but then spends a few years living it rough on the streets might still be mostly good, but not afraid to break some laws if circumstances called for it.

I don't really think much about my characters' alignments. Their history and personality are more important to me than a label.

 

[xbrokenxswordx]

Alignment doesn't stifle roleplaying. Lack of roleplaying ability stifles roleplaying. I'm kind of apathetic towards the whole alignment thing because if you're a good RPer, you'll RP well with or without alignment.

I can definately see the good points for alignment however. It provides a nice general outline of how said character will act. The vast majority of people that you know, you can probably make a pretty solid guess as to how they will respond in any given situation. The same goes for characters.

The nine alignments are only confining if you let them be. They aren't some strict rule where someone is standing over your head about to shoot you if you don't follow your PCs alignment. It's a general guideline with tons of room to move inside.

 

[Crothian]

Alignments are great. But just becasue you put down CG at first level doesn't mean you have to always be CG. No where does it say that and I'll never uderstand how being can think it's a straight jaket. Guess what? No matter how you play, you are playing an alignment. It doesn't matter what you think you are, all that matters is the way you role play the character. Alignments are not a players issue most of the time. THe DM should assign alignments based on the way the characters play.

And by assuming that everytone things all people of one alignment act the same you are really looking the fool. They don't. THere ar emany ways to play LG and they don't even have to get along. I think people are lazy when they just throw it out without really thinking about it.

 

[Snapdragyn]

"Alignment is a description, not a proscription."

I really liked this when someone wrote it in another such thread here. Obviously for a paladin (or monk to a lesser extent) must view it a bit differently, but that's part of the restriction of playing that class.

 

[teitan]

Look, look, ANOTHER I hate alignments thread!!!

Jason

 

[BiggusGeekus]

<- uses alignments

 

[herald]

I'm dumping alignment in my next game.

I'm thinking about using taint from UA or something from D20 Modern.

The parts I hate about alignment is simple. I just doesn't go far enough to reflect social and ethical situations. In a fantasy situation there have to be more than 9 basic outlooks.

 

[Psion]

Yeah, yeah, I know. Don't feed the troll.

Alignment is an old and archaic tyrannical straight jacket. In the day, when D&D was a wargame, it might have been necessary to keep your players acting in a consistant manner;

Alignment is not a straight jacket. If you are using it that way, you are using it wrong. In 1e and 2e, where you got XP penalties, it might have been. In 3e, it's mostly descriptive, for the purposes of magic and similar effects.

but that was before method acting and storytelling were wide spread in a role playing game. I've known many people who don't like alignment, and many more who see it as a straight jacket instead of a guideline.

I know many more people who have never expressed the first objection to it, and use it just fine.

Most people don't understand alignment enough to use it well;

And you have statistics on this, right?

Based on my experience with my players and in other groups, this assertion does not wash. Most players seem to use it just fine.

Even worse, they've built more mechanics around it in 3rd edition.

More? They have reduced aligment effects. e.g., know alignment is no longer a spell.

If you use alignment, you're shooting yourself in the face.

But I got better...

It's lazy and confining at the same time. Instead of making a personality for a character or a non-player character, let's just assign an alignment; because you know, all Lawful Good people act the same.

If all your LG characters act the same, I daresay the problem isn't alignment.

It's a crutch to the game. It's removal would simplify so many things and solve many problems. You wouldn't see all these newbs and evil wannabees with "neutral evil" on their character sheet. You think alignment is supposed to regulate them?

No, I expect group contract and maturity to play to what the group wants in a gaming experience to regulate them. The sort of problem you are speaking of hasn't been a problem in any group I have participated in since junior high school.

Any competent DM worth his salt punishes evil PCs instead of whining about how they hate evil characters.

A competent DM has no problem with alignment at all, and is mature enough to decide whether or not it is necessary for the sort of campaign he wishes to create, and deals with it accordingly.

IMHO, the most innovative system for alignment is the lack of one. I can only hope that the designers for 4th edition will have the good sense to slay this sacred cow.

Since 3e did a pretty extensive survey showing most players wanted it, I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I like using alignments. Of course, I don't think a single one of my players has their alignment on their character sheet; as DM, it's really *my* job to track alignment. Alignments change over time, certainly -- right now the gnome* bard in my group is being converted by the group from CE (strongly chaotic, slightly evil) to CN. This isn't happening with any real mechanical support, since the characters aren't even aware of their own alignments.

Heck, half the group are Keldrians, so they can't really even grasp the abstract concept of "good" and "evil" anyway. This doesn't stop them from being good or evil, it just stops them from realizing they are. In fact, when I told one of the players his charater's alignment he was shocked, until he stopped to think about it. (He then agreed.)


* 3-HD fey with nature-based abilities, not humanoid magical tinkerer.