Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarauderX" data-source="post: 1089609" data-attributes="member: 9990">I would ditch the subdivisions of alignment and just go with Good, Evil, and Neutral.  Players could be and do what they wanted to an extent, and only good gods would grant good characters powers.  The dividing lines become a little more clear in many ways, but less in others, such as revenge or other savage things that could be attributed to any alignment.  I ran a campaign without alignment before, and most of the players are good when they think they should be acting good, neutral in most moral situations, and bad when they think they can get away with it - which was a majority of the time.  I felt like I had to push them to behave sometimes, as they would lead wealthy merchants down dark allies, jump them, and pretend they were completely innocent the next day when 10 witnesses showed up to rat them out, and that they weren't valiant heroes after all but just greedy self-serving doorknobs.  All in all, a party can do whatever it likes, yes; but assigning at least some restriction to actions holds the players a little accountable for their actions, and has served to prevent the players from acting good or bad against their alignment when it suits the encounter.</blockquote>