LIfe Without Alignment

[Set]

I've also almost exclusively (even in D&D) played without alignment, and it does not turn non-asshats into asshats. It does give actual asshats new tools to mangle, though.

Word to that. In 20+ years, I've never, never, never grouped with an evil party that was one tenth as disruptive and prone to attacking other party members as the rare times I've been stuck in a group with a Paladin using their alignment as an excuse to steal loot from the party, stab other players characters in the back, or abandon them to monsters, all with the self-righteous justification of, 'I'm just role-playing my alignment! You guys were doing something that violated my codes of honor by trying to kill my prisoner / negotiate with the bad-guys / sneak the kidnapped prince out of town / bribe the corrupt official! I *had* to kill the rest of the party!'

 

[WayneLigon]

And most RPGs have alignment systems, just with different names. HERO and GURPS most certainly have alignment systems in their codes of conduct and other behavioral disads. Moreover, Champions had the default "superhero" codes very enforced in the assumed default 4 color setting. The first PC we meet - Crusader - has a Code vs. Killing.

Those are not alignment systems. Those are behavioral suggestions or genre conventions. Dark Champions, for instance, certainly has no Code vs Killing. Neither does Fantasy HERO. Disadvantages in GURPS and HERO are not moral imperatives; they are relative and, increasingly, seen as something of a point grab.

For instance: If I choose to take the disad Murder Addiction in GURPS, that doesn't make my character Evil in the sense that choosing to be Chaotic Evil in D&D does. My GURPS character could have a perfectly good reason for doing what he does; he might even be forced to do it by circumstance, culture, or any of a number of other reasons. He might well do it because he likes to hear his victim's last screams, or he could be doing it because he suffers from a mental disorder. Or maybe that's just the way his alien culture operates, much like the Predator society.

Being Addicted to Murder is, in the context of most game worlds that a person is likely to play in, a disad because it adds complexity and invonvenience to the PC's life. It hinders him in his goals. Now, if you were playing, perhaps, GURPS Predator, then everyone around you would have a variant of that disad and understand it; there would be no repurcusion and thus no disadvantage. In that culture, the Disad might be worth, at best, 5 points if it even existed as a 'disad' at all.

That's not D&D style alignment, since D&D-style alignment doesn't give a hoot about your culture or circumstances. Evil is Evil and Good is Good.

 

[Zaruthustran]

That said, I'm sorry to see the D&D system go. IME, alignment systems are less RP straitjacket and more guide to RP in a fantasy world in which Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are tangible forces.

I think D&D can keep that element without imposing alignment on PCs and other mortals.

Keep Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as big, cosmic forces. But really, only in extraordinary circumstances do they belong/apply to the world at the level of 1:1 human interaction.

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

Reading through the thread has helped me realize how i use alignment in the games I play or DM.

Mostly, I use alignment as a first step in determining a PC or NPC's world view. Even when I use NPC generators, I enjoy getting the random alignment because it's the strongest indicator as to how to RP the character. Of course I can still use alignment in this way in 4e with no changes to the system and probably without my players even knowing the NPC has an 'alignment.'

As a player it's a little different. The only non-D&D rpg's I've played are Sidewinder and D20 Future, but in these settings society is strongly represented and much closer to our own, so players understand right away that if they execute all prisoners or treat a verbal insult as a reason to kill someone (always possible in Sidewinder!) they are running the risk of persecution.

D&D seems different to me, especially the proposed 'points of light' setting, where what happens in the wilderness between PoL, stays in the wilderness between PoL. Human bandits and gnoll raiders may behave in a similar manner but were often handled differently based on PC alignment. At heart, players are killing both groups and taking their stuff, the banditry was just an excuse to do so, but the lawful or the good PC's may want to try and bring the human bandits back to town for trial while PC's pf other alignments may have no opinion or might wish to execute and bandits who surrender, etc.

So what happens when a party of unaligned PC's storm the bandit's hideout and take several alive? The players have had no reason to think about the character's moral outlook in such a situation, and the most expedient thing - the video game thing- is to kill the bandits and move on.

I suppose the 'solution' is to have the DM make societal standards made very clear, so the PC's know how the locals expect situations to be handled, maybe even have the sheriff or whoever hired the PC's to take on the bandits say he expects prisoners or what-not. The the PC's can decide if they want play along with the community standards or go a different route.

So after some thought I can see it working and also see ways to bring ethical dilemmas into the game w/o targeting a specific player because he's CG or what have you.

Still, I think I'm going to miss that moment in PC creation where you 'choose a side.'

-Z

 

[Counterspin]

If your players aren't willing to consider the ramifications of slaughtering helpless humanoids, that's a player issue, plain and simple. If you want to fix it talk to them. And I love how you come to the conclusion that in an RPG, if there's no alignment system, the default is to slaughter helpless foes, and then you call that result videogamey. Comedy gold.

 

[kennew142]

I am so glad to see the D&D alignment system go by the wayside. The only thing that kept me from jettisoning it in 3e was the existence of spells like Holy Smite, Holy Word etc... Without any mechanical reason to keep it, I will say good-by to it forever.

In all the years I've run GURPS and HERO, I've never had to deal with the problem of "evil" PCs. I've only had that in D&D, usually when the character had some form of Law and/or Good written on their character sheets.

I may use something akin to the D20 allegiances system. I was planning on it for my next game back when I thought it was going to be 3e.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

Though D&D has been my favorite fantasy game for quite some time, I'm not really bothered by alignment going by the wayside.

As it is, players will act as they will, and problems will stem from that accordingly, based on the situation in-game.

Star Wars has Dark Side points for Dark Side-worthy behavior. IMC, I expect a couple of my players to do something that will earn them a Dark Side point. In one case, it's because the player's emotions cause that person to often act without thinking. In another case, one player will argue about getting the Dark Side point because it wasn't "technically an evil action" (but rather, the player's arguing because that player is getting a penalty for something). Though I sorta doubt it, I wouldn't be surprised if I have to take up someone's character because they've fallen to the Dark Side (FYI: received a number of Dark Side points = to their Wisdom score).

Quite a few players, in my experience, gravitated toward Chaotic alignments, and CN is the alignment of choice for many of those players (esp. when Evil ALs aren't an option). However, IMO, the games often suffer because of this because everyone's busy acting like the tough guy loner or the carefree trickster who doesn't need anyone instead of actually working as a team (which is crucial in D&D, esp. since each class covers a particular role). It gets old, quick. These players have sometimes said that they're tired of playing the noble hero role because it gets old, but instead they go and play another well-worn stereotypical style of character instead.

And, these styles of play will continue, whether D&D has Alignment or not. Even with the "light dusting" of Alignment in game, there will be points where the game breaks down into an argument.

But, rather than making it a built-in framework of the game system as it has been, I think it'll be a bit more discretionary for DMs to work with. Now, I wouldn't mind certain class options, magic items, and the like still using these remnant Alignments as requirements somehow (such as only a Good character can use a holy sword, for example). But, I woldn't be bothered at all if this was the exception rather than the norm.

 

[Xethreau]

Alignment, the condition of a character's heart, should not be a mechanic. Good-hearted, evil-hearted, and indifferent people all exist, and there should neither be mechanics to represent this, nor absolutes to deal with. Absolutes make little narrative sense. It's easy to say "Oh, he is a half-fiend, let's get him!" even if you are Lawful Good. However, a character on the side of good should use good morals to judge the fiend, and not kill it on sight because of principal. That may not be the game the rest of the world plays, but it is the sort of thing I hope to play some day.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

The concerns and problems you guys are seeing are completely foreign to me. Can I ask a question? Have you ever played another RPG other than D&D? I can't think (off hand) of any other game that has alignment

WFRP 1E Did. Other systems did too.

I don't think that not having it will cause any problems however - problems with players playing in a chaotic, evil, disruptive or anarchic fashion has more to do with the players than the system they make.

Oh, and I agree with Derren too, I think. Alignment has been a problem for me when a player's decided that their definition (based on realworld) is correct, not the definition in the books.

 

[Anthtriel]

Alignment helps if your character has no motivation or ideals, i.e. is flatter than cardboard.
Other than that, and the Great Wheel (which has been discarded anyway), I don't see much value in it. Alignment has certainly done more damage in my campaigns than it helped, as beginners, and sometimes even veterans, would use it in place of proper characterization.

I think D&D can keep that element without imposing alignment on PCs and other mortals.

Keep Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as big, cosmic forces. But really, only in extraordinary circumstances do they belong/apply to the world at the level of 1:1 human interaction.

If I'm not mistaken, we have seen no reference to Law and Chaos in 4E so far, which probably means the distinction has been killed completely. Which would be a good thing too, because it was often very arbitrary. I remember reading and participating in quite a few discussion about it, and the general consensus was that most actions could be described as either law or chaos, depending on your justification.