Snoweel
First Post
So I was in chat last night and, out of sheer boredom, decided to start an alignment argument.
Firstly, I'll state that the simple fix of "Why not just eliminate alignment from your game" is just fine - if you don't use alignment as a game mechanic.
However, I personally find alignment as a tangible force - a game element quantifiable with mechanics - adds to the epic flavour of a game, so I've been pondering an alignment fix since the release of 3e.
And I've decided that alignment becomes a RP straightjacket for characters for the simple reason that there are too many of them.
9 different alignments means that each one is necessarily too narrowly defined, leading, naturally, to RP restrictions, since, as we all say, "nobody acts like that (whatever alignment 'that' may be) all the time."
So my fix is to effectively include Neutral with either Good or Evil and with either Law or Chaos.
Here is where each group has to define for themselves which side of the two axes is the most easily described. If no agreement can be reached, then obviously alignment cannot be used.
Personally, I've decided that my 4 alignments are Evil and not-Evil on the one axis (which also fits with OAs 'Taint' mechanic I love so much), and Lawful and not-Lawful on the other (and links to OAs 'Honour' mechanic), noting that Lawful =/= law-abiding.
This way I still have alignment as a mechanic, but instead of 9 narrowly-defined alignments, I now have 2 narrowly-defined alignments (Evil and Lawful) and 2 broadly-defined (not-Evil and not-Lawful).
Of course I've had to codify exactly what Lawful and Evil mean to me, and anything that doesn't fall into either of these categories falls into the 'other' category.
It helps that I subscribe to the theory of 'Darkness is not the opposite of light; it is the absence of light' which tends to fly in the face of traditional D&D alignment structure, where Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos were seen as equal but opposite forces.
Note also that my system allows for differing worldviews - your system could be:
Good, not-Good, Lawful, not-Lawful
Evil, not-Evil, Chaotic, not-Chaotic
or even
Good, not-Good, Chaotic, not-Chaotic
though imo, I can't see how anybody would see Chaotic, not-Chaotic as making more sense than Lawful, not-Lawful. That said, if anybody would like to have a nice argument about it, I'm game if you are.
Firstly, I'll state that the simple fix of "Why not just eliminate alignment from your game" is just fine - if you don't use alignment as a game mechanic.
However, I personally find alignment as a tangible force - a game element quantifiable with mechanics - adds to the epic flavour of a game, so I've been pondering an alignment fix since the release of 3e.
And I've decided that alignment becomes a RP straightjacket for characters for the simple reason that there are too many of them.
9 different alignments means that each one is necessarily too narrowly defined, leading, naturally, to RP restrictions, since, as we all say, "nobody acts like that (whatever alignment 'that' may be) all the time."
So my fix is to effectively include Neutral with either Good or Evil and with either Law or Chaos.
Here is where each group has to define for themselves which side of the two axes is the most easily described. If no agreement can be reached, then obviously alignment cannot be used.
Personally, I've decided that my 4 alignments are Evil and not-Evil on the one axis (which also fits with OAs 'Taint' mechanic I love so much), and Lawful and not-Lawful on the other (and links to OAs 'Honour' mechanic), noting that Lawful =/= law-abiding.
This way I still have alignment as a mechanic, but instead of 9 narrowly-defined alignments, I now have 2 narrowly-defined alignments (Evil and Lawful) and 2 broadly-defined (not-Evil and not-Lawful).
Of course I've had to codify exactly what Lawful and Evil mean to me, and anything that doesn't fall into either of these categories falls into the 'other' category.
It helps that I subscribe to the theory of 'Darkness is not the opposite of light; it is the absence of light' which tends to fly in the face of traditional D&D alignment structure, where Good and Evil, and Law and Chaos were seen as equal but opposite forces.
Note also that my system allows for differing worldviews - your system could be:
Good, not-Good, Lawful, not-Lawful
Evil, not-Evil, Chaotic, not-Chaotic
or even
Good, not-Good, Chaotic, not-Chaotic
though imo, I can't see how anybody would see Chaotic, not-Chaotic as making more sense than Lawful, not-Lawful. That said, if anybody would like to have a nice argument about it, I'm game if you are.
Last edited:
