I hate alignment

[takyris]

I'd like to see alignments replaced by allegiances, but that's mainly because I'm such a d20 Modern fanboy.

Allegiances allow you to differentiate between a guard who knows he's working for the evil warlock and is loyal and dutiful but doesn't enjoy hurting people or go out of his way to inflict pain and a guard who happily and sadistically takes care of the warlock's most cruel wishes and takes evil actions of his own initiative. The former has an allegiance to the warlock, while the latter has an allegiance to evil (and possibly the warlock as well).

It's a bit more realistic than a keep entirely full of evil people, which is what we end up with most of the time in the games I've seen.

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.

 

[Psion]

I'd like to see alignments replaced by allegiances, but that's mainly because I'm such a d20 Modern fanboy.

I think in some campaigns (like the Second World game I am running right now), alleigance is just the ticket. It helps maintain a more realistic attitude towards motivation. For example, if someone have alleigance to good and their church, and their church doesn't like YOU for whatever reason, well, you can go somewhere else to get your healing done. (Was he baptized in the Church of Sorth? Well, I'm sorry, I am afraid he is beyond us...)

 

[milotha]

As other have said. Alignments are a guide not a path. Alignment gives you a suggestion as to how your player may view the world. It doesn't dictate your behavior. There is nothing in the rules that says a chaotic character cannot behave in a lawful manner sometimes. There's nothing that really prevents you from changing alignments. Even for Monks, Druids, and even Paladins, I've seen GMs make alignment exceptions for good character backgrounds, motivations, and situtational modifiers. The good GMs out there won't turn alignment into a straight jacket.

I usually design a character's personality and background and then pick an alignment the most closely matches my view of the character. I've never felt confined by alignment, well, except as a paladin. And that was poor GMing.

 

[Beretta]

I've never felt confined by alignment, well, except as a paladin. And that was poor GMing.

I would think that most people's hatred of alignment could be attributed to poor GMing. There's a few who still carry the 1st and 2nd AD&D mindset, where actions that deviated from your alignment would be punished by being awarded zero xp, to actually losing a level if an alignment change was required.

In those editions alignment was certainly more of a straitjacket. In 3rd edition it's not so much of an issue any more (or, at least, it shouldn't be).

 

[ForceUser]

For roleplaying, alignment is merely a barometer to gauge character interactions. If it feels like anything more, you're missing the point of the system. That said, there's nothing wrong with not using alignments if you don't mind rewriting a few fundamental game mechanics.

 

[ph0rk]

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.

how does taint reflect social and ethical situations? it is still a glorified method for differentiating between 'good' and 'evil'.


using the alignment system isn't that hard. if an alignment specific spell or item pops up, just review in your DM instant replay the actions of the pcs over the last few sessions. these describe their current alignment.

I'd like to see alignments replaced by allegiances, but that's mainly because I'm such a d20 Modern fanboy.

it is a neat system, but not entirely necessary; one can come up with motivations for their pcs within the standard system outlined in the 3.5 PHB and DMG.

At the risk of sounding pedantic and reduntant; if aligment causes a problem in your games; is it the system, or the gamers understanding of it (or lack thereof).

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

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.

 

[der_kluge]

Yea, we've heard it all before.

IMC, I use alignment, but I don't really regulate it. I just say, "no evil", and that's about it.

I could just as easily dump alignment, and just say, "don't go around killing people for no reason, and we'll be ok."

But, I've altered some stuff. For example, I like the [evil], [chaos], etc descriptors. It makes sense for some creatures. Spells that detect alignments, in my campaign, detect creatures with the appropriate descriptor. So, detect good only detects [good] creatures. So, you could detect evil on a murdering thug, but it won't detect him, because he's not [evil] in the way that a demon is evil.

So, there is a kind of sliding alignment rule that isn't defined, per se.

It does weaken things a bit, since protection from evil doesn't work on said murdering thug, but it still does work on a devil, or whatever.

Mainly I did it to prevent Paladins from walking into a bar and going "I detect evil, what do I get?"

 

[Zappo]

Well, Psion (probably on account of being a psion) expressed My Thoughts Exactly. One note...

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.

In D&D, they are. IDHMBIFOM, but I think this is even explicitly said in the PHB. You could as well ditch clerics because some DMs don't use clerical magic.

 

[pdkoning]

I like alignments, but you should not use it as a motivation of play: a paladin using 'detect evil' all day, and slaying all those evil people without a good reason but that 'detect evil' told him they were evil, is not a good thing

Also: a druid who sometimes helps those in need of help, and sometimes has to steal something, because otherwise he would suffer an alignment shift, is not the way to go.

I think, with a good DM (and players), alignment is just OK.