I hate alignment

[S'mon]

That said, I didn't have a problem with alignment in my D&D game, and I was even mucking around with it -- I had deities whose alignment varied from nation to nation as they were perceived (and faithfully worshipped) in different manners. Example: A water deity might be a merciful, life-granting Neutral Good in the desert but a cruel and capricious Chaotic Evil in the stormy, windswept northern islands.

Cool.
I'm going more & more towards this approach, retaining Alignment but making it subjective. Eg IMC the Church of Ksarul (from MAR Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne) is highly organised & secretive, it worships one of the Lords of Change, Doomed Prince of the Blue Room, a god of magic & hidden knowledge fated to bring on the Apocalypse when freed from his stasis-sleep. Ksarul & his church can be considered LN, CN, LE or CE depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

 

[S'mon]

What I find most annoying about alignment is that the basic D&D system presumes that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos should be cosmic forces in their own right.

There's no reason this must be the case in fantasy gaming, or any reason why DMs should necessarily build worlds this way. Too many people accept it as a given.

I agree it can be a problem, especially with weapons that do Holy damage to the town guard because he's had a bad day and is feeling kinda NE.

I like cosmic forces 'of' Law & Chaos, Good & Evil are much harder to pin down. Gygaxian 1e AD&D had a weird lapsed-Catholic approach where Good existed as an absolute yet Neutrality was generally presented as preferable(!) - see eg the Gord the Rogue books.

 

[MerricB]

The D&D world presumes alignment. If you don't have alignment you aren't playing D&D.

Well, maybe you are, but not "by-the-book" "as-Gygax intended", etc.

Cheers!

 

[dead]

The D&D world presumes alignment. If you don't have alignment you aren't playing D&D.

Well, maybe you are, but not "by-the-book" "as-Gygax intended", etc.

Cheers!

I suppose if 4th edition removes alignment then "all-of-a-sudden" D&D without alignment will be OK for you?

Alignment is a tag that's unnecessary. If you play a "personality" then that's good enough. If you want to tack an alignment on later then that's up to you but 10 people will give 10 different answers on what PC x's alignment is. Sure, the GM is the final arbiter, but if the player thinks his character is NOT evil but the GM does, and penalises him for it, then there's gonna be resentment. This argument isn't necessary -- that's the point.

This isn't to mention that sometimes alignment will be incapable of defining a complex personality. People aren't just white, black and grey. They can be black with grey streaks or white with black speckles.

Look at the Bane spell. It effects all "enemies". Make all the detect good/evil and holy/unholy blight spells detect/affect the "enemy".

Anyway . . . I've said all this elsewhere.

 

[MerricB]

I used a smiley face for a reason.

D&D is what you make it. I do think it'd be a shame if alignment were to disappear, because it does reinforce certain conflicts that I feel are core to D&D.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Talath = Teh Bugaboo.

 

[dead]

I used a smiley face for a reason.

Sorry, "mate".

Pop another shrimp on the barbie

Do you live near the Big Pinapple?

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I think alignment is an excellent way to describe your character, if you let the character determine it's own alignment, rather than the other way around. If you understand what the alignment means, you play your character and set your alignment based on roleplaying the character. It's intended and best used as a descriptive tool, rather than a as straightjacket for your roleplaying.

 

[Gundark]

okay then don't play alignment....problem solved

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Andy's take on alignment

I agree that the previous editions heavy handed approach has flavoured some people's view, bad memories and all. Some others don't like absolute morality being part of their game. Finally there are those who didn't bother to read the chapter (probably skipped the 'boring' combat chapter too ) and threw the baby out with the bath water.

I believe that alignment in it's fundamental role exists in everyones game like it or not, but that D&D has gone to the bother of formalizing it. Imnsho alignment is a shorthand statement of an intention to play a character in a certain way (and thereby telling the referee how compatible your character is within a given social group).

Another thought, there seems to be underlying belief that alignment change is bad. Sure some classes do have serious consequences but a change in alignment can be a maturing development for a character. I mean maturing not as one alignment is 'better' than another but rather from the perspective of how the player would want their character to grow.