My "new" idea for dealing with alignment

[Tsyr]

I've recently had a thought on alignment, and I'm going to test it in my next campaign. I didn't put this in house rules because it's not so much a new rule as a way to deal with an existing one. If the mods prefer, they can move it, I won't mind.

Now, mind, I'm sure I'm not the first person to try this. Probably not even the first person to suggest it here. But I'd like to get others imput on it.

My campaign world has a fairly strong "good vs evil" theme. Not that I prevent people playing evil characters and only allow pure heros or anything... it's more like how it is in the WoT books... a person can be good, evil, neutral, whatever. But in the background, there is a sort of "natural opposition" between the forces of good and evil. If you follow. Anyhow. I wanted a way to deal with this without making it seem overly apparent right away, or overly corney, so this was my thought. (And I didn't want to remove alignment totaly, Holy swords and similar aren't as cool that way).

Players will have alignment. They just won't know it. I'll keep that information to myself, changing it whenever it seems like they shift from one to another. IE, if a really "good" character gets a sword that only works for good people, he wouldn't know that... it works for him, so who cares, right? But if he starts taking advantage of the power it gives, it might stop working for him. Likewise, a not-so-good person might have a sword that just seems like a plain +1 magical sword, but after he does enough "good" to shift his alignment up a notch, it starts working for him. Again, with no direct reason apparent. Likewise, the first time a player with a talisman that is said to "Protect against evil in all its forms" gets burned when he tries to put it on... muahahahahaha!

Well? Thoughts? Suggestions? Flames?

 

[CRGreathouse]

The more I DM, the more I lean to this kind of treatment of alignment.

The next game I run, I think I'll tell everyone not to write an alignment on their character sheet.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm building a system based on Chaosium's Allegiance system. In this manner, I assign points based on actions performed in-game. Then, how PCs react to protection from [x] or detect [x] type spells and other such things is dependant on their points.

 

[Mr Fidgit]

i'm really curious about this, Tsyr.

how are you going to keep track of this? (a point system, etc.)

what determines starting alignment (in regards to those classes who are bound by alignment restrictions) and how will alignment shifts affect these PCs?

more specifically, how will this affect clerics (especially ones with alignment domains)?

more specifically (II), how will this affect paladins? will they lose their abilities if they shift too much towards NG or LN?

 

[Kyramus]

I tend to use the 10 point system.

have them state what alignment they are but you jot it down, not them.

As the game progress , you mark down the good marks and bad marks.
if it totals 10 or over, the character shifts one alignment step to good or evil.

assume he went with true neutral, but over the course of the game he has done over 10 good deeds.
that puts him to neutral good.
then start the count from the excess points.

personally i've set the alignments to do this.
Neutral- neutral good, lawful good, chaotic good
neutral- neutral evil, lawful evil, chaotic evil

it's not a full proof sstem, to do that you would have 4 scores
Good, evil, lawful and chaotic.
then you can adjust it on that axis.
I have implimented that in my campaign so far and eventually people will notice the problems when someone casts detect evil and someone in the party is evil. hehe

 

[Zappo]

I do it about the same way, except that the players do know their alignment. Not that you can keep it secret indefinitely - a few detect something spells and it'll be revealed.

Anyway, what I do is first of all to consider alignment as a game mechanic more than anything else. It only comes out in using holy swords, being subject to detect evil, that sort of stuff. It will not prevent you from doing something.

I keep alignment as something determined by the character's behaviour, instead of something determin[/i]ing[/i] it. Therefore, if you have "neutral" written on the sheet and start torturing people, I am not going to dock XP for bad roleplaying or anything like that. I'll just switch you to evil.

This perspective puts alignment in its proper place - a mechanic to determine whether that holy sword will burn you or not. I think that using it to define the character's personality is not going to work.

 

[The Emperor]

I am not familiar with Chaosium's Allegiance system but I recently developed a method that I just started using in my game. I got most of the idea from a friend of mine (The Seer) and adjusted/fleshed it out a bit to suit my style of Dming. The players start out with an alignment that they choose (this assigns a begining value - you'll see below). From that point on their actions determine what their real alignment is regardless of what they have written on their sheet. Then I track the player actions for what I call Law Vs Chaos and Good Vs Evil points. If the character performs a lawful act I assign 1 law vs chaos point. If they perform a chaotic act I subtract a Law vs Chaos point. Neutral acts do not effect the running total either way. I do the same thing for Good vs evil points. Good acts = +1, Evil acts = -1 and neutral acts = 0. The two running totals determine their alignment. Here’s the values I have been using: Law vs Chaos: Below –5 is Chaotic. –5 through 5 is Neutral. Greater than +5 is Lawful. Good vs Evil: Any number below –5 is evil. Values between –5 and 5 are neutral. +5 or greater is Good.
Some examples:
7/2 (Law vs Chaos Value/Good vs Evil Value) = Lawful Neutral
7/8 = Lawful Good.
-8/10 = Chaotic Good

It’s fairly easy to track. I only mark points for actions that stand out one way or the other which usually works out to a few points per session.

 

[The Serge]

While I like your idea (although I wouldn't use it), how would you handle classes like Monks and Paladins.

Additionally, wouldn't you have to let Players know up front what constitutes Good, Neutrality or Evil, and Lawful, Neutrality, and Chaos in your world's cosmological framework?

Finally, to me this robs Players of having to role-play their characters alignments from the beginning and limits their character's developments since they have no idea (unless you tell them) what constitutes Goodness or Evil....

 

[Tsyr]

While I like your idea (although I wouldn't use it), how would you handle classes like Monks and Paladins.

Additionally, wouldn't you have to let Players know up front what constitutes Good, Neutrality or Evil, and Lawful, Neutrality, and Chaos in your world's cosmological framework?

Finally, to me this robs Players of having to role-play their characters alignments from the beginning and limits their character's developments since they have no idea (unless you tell them) what constitutes Goodness or Evil....

I don't have monks. Don't like the pseudo-oriental class for my pseudo-european world

As for paladins, I treat them a little different. Paladins are a chosen warrior of a god... Paladins basicly have no choice about what they are. You can't choose to be a paladin, anymore than you can really choose to NOT be one. As such, paladins can be of any lawful alignment. For a paladin to violate his alignment is a very Bad Thing... as in, wrath of god called down upon the player bad. But it's also going to be a rare thing... the gods don't often choose wrong. Thus, I tend to make sure ahead of time that a player wants to play a paladin, not a warrior with kewl powers.

As for letting them know what constitutes good and evil... *shrug*. I use a fairly consistant "simplified western" ideal of good and evil. Much like any generic fantasy world. Law and Chaos, while relevent, as much less important in the grand scheme of things... You aren't going to find many Chaos or Law swords in my world, for example. But basicly, they know more or less how I work already. Law basicly breaks down to honor, in my games. Not quite typical DnD "law", but I've made this clear to my players before. Thus, a "lawful" barbarian is quite possible... it's a barbarian from a tribe or culture that values honor highly. Klingons would be a mostly lawful society, for example.

And as for it limiting and hindering the character... FAR from it, IMHO. Exactly the oposite in fact. In fact, the main inspiration for this was a comment at my last session where a player said: "Well... Gracian WOULD do this, after all, he's just been cheated, he's a fairly tempermental sort, and he already suspects this merchant is in league with (big bad guy)... But it says "good" on his character sheet, so...". I don't want my players to try to roleplay a catch-phrase. I don't think alignment can always be pigeonholed into a nice little two-word phrase. I want them to roleplay the CHARACTER, and let their actions speak for themselves. I'm firmly in the "Alignment represents a characters actions, not guides them" camp.

 

[The Emperor]

The Serge, you bring up some valid questions I should address and expand upon my post…

While I like your idea (although I wouldn't use it), how would you handle classes like Monks and Paladins.

-I enofrce the penelties if they stray from the allowed alignment.

Additionally, wouldn't you have to let Players know up front what constitutes Good, Neutrality or Evil, and Lawful, Neutrality, and Chaos in your world's cosmological framework?
[/B]

-Yes. Communication along these lines is VERY important. I believe this to be true for any alignment system you use. I feel a DM should have frequent discussions with players regarding what effects alignment. This is VITAL so that if you do have to impose penalties the player shouldn't be too surprised.

Finally, to me this robs Players of having to role-play their characters alignments from the beginning and limits their character's developments since they have no idea (unless you tell them) what constitutes Goodness or Evil.... [/B]

- I would argue that the opposite is true. I find that it frees the player up to more RP opportunity and character development. IMO character actions should determine alignment, not the other way around. Otherwise you end up with.. “Your Lawful Good...you wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't do that!"