What Alternatives Are There For Alignments... ?

[Desdichado]

I prefer to dump it entirely, remove the restrictions on class related to alignment (since most of them are somewhat arbitrary anyway) and excise the few spells that actually use them, at least in terms of mortal individuals. Protection from evil won't protect you from the evil caravan guard, in this case, but it would against a demon, for instance.

Personally, and you may well disagree, I don't think there's a lot of value in creating an alternate system, but I think there's a lot of value in getting rid of alignment. Too often it's played proscriptively instead of descriptively, even by players who in other respects are great roleplayers.

 

[Zappo]

I find that the alignment system works fine, but most people approach it from the wrong direction. In my campaigns, players decide their character's motivation and personality, and then assign an alignment suiting that personality. The alignment determines how alignment-based spells and effect react to the character. The common gripe that "alignment is a straight-jacket" doesn't apply, because in my opinion alignment doesn't dictate the character's behaviour. Rather, it's the other way around.

Behave rightly, and you get a good alignment - but the only thing this means is that an unholy sword will hurt you a lot and you will beep on detect good. It doesn't mean that I'll force you to sulk angstily for hours after killing an orc tribe. To tell the truth, I thouroughly despise any discussion that begins with "a lawful good character would...". IMO, saying that a character is lawful good means that he'll not like being in the area of a blasphemy spell and that's about it; alignment doesn't dictate behaviour, because that would imply reducing the possible personalities to just nine which is very reductive. The opposite can be true, instead.

 

[Dirigible]

Alcoholic -5, Carousing -5, Greedy -5, Prejudiced -10, Stubborn -5.

Hm. None of these are vices in dwarven society (edit : by which I mean stadard, Tolkeinesque dwarves). Why should we measure fictional races by human (and specifically, whichever culture you come from, Azlan) moral standards?

Maybe I'm hust bitter, because when statting myself up with your system I reached an aura of -120 (roughly, 'Seething Black Tar Pit Of Unspeakableness) .

 

[Nightfall]

*bad post* *VERY bad post*

 

[Nightfall]

Personally if you want a good alternate alignment system, I tend to favor Book of Hallowed Might's point system.

 

[Planesdragon]

Simply put, alignments are too stereotypical and two-dimensional to portray the realities and intricacies of sentient beings with free wills.

Alingment isn't supposed to be more than "what side you're on." It's not subjective, it's not variable--and it's NOT supposed to be all that you do to describe your character.

A cruel Inquisitor, a naive adventurer, a cowardly spellcaster, and a vicious fighter can all be Lawful Good.

 

[Azlan]

Hm. None of these are vices in dwarven society (edit : by which I mean stadard, Tolkeinesque dwarves). Why should we measure fictional races by human (and specifically, whichever culture you come from, Azlan) moral standards?

Well, gee! You have to start with some sort of pre-defined standards. And I believe it's pretty much the consensus - regardless of whichever culture you're from, in this world - that traits such as alcoholism, greed, and prejudice are overall bad for society; bad, even, for the world as a whole. Would this be the consensus among dwarves as well? Probably not. But let's be realistic here: Even if you're going to play a dwarf character in D&D, you're still a human being in real life, interacting and playing a game with other real-life human beings.

 

[Azlan]

Alignment isn't supposed to be more than "what side you're on." It's not subjective, it's not variable--and it's NOT supposed to be all that you do to describe your character.

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons why I want to replace alignments with something else; something that is less two-dimensional and more quantifying. Besides, the whole "what side you're on" part (which is pretty much what alignments boil down to, in just about every D&D campaign I've ever played in) is simply too neat and too pat.

 

[Azlan]

Personally, and you may well disagree, I don't think there's a lot of value in creating an alternate system, but I think there's a lot of value in getting rid of alignment. Too often it's played proscriptively instead of descriptively, even by players who in other respects are great roleplayers.

I do disagree. Myself, I don't want to have players roleplaying in a vacuuum. That is, I don't want a game that is totally devoid of rules, regulations, or even guidelines for the roleplaying of characters, leaving things totally up to whims and interpretations of the players. That kind of open-ended, free-form roleplaying is not my cup of tea.

So, if I'm going to get rid of alignments, then I want a better alternative to replace it; an alternative that, through being more quantifying, is three-dimensional and multi-functional.

 

[Azlan]

The problem with alignment is that it is very general and broad. But that's also it's strength. It doesn't describe with much precision, but it is simple and flexible.

I think you'll find that if you try to describe real people well, whatever system you'll come up with is hopelessly complex, because real people are hopelessly complex

For example, look at those characters you describe. Sure, the things you write there more accurately, completely, and precisely describe them as people, but you need to track 11 or 12 new stats to do it. Honestly, is it worth the paperwork to track dozens of personality traits with numbers? For every single character?

Since I am unsatisfied with the shortcomings of the alignment system; yet since I don't want to dispense with it altogether without a bigger and better alternative in its stead; then, of course, whatever I replace the alignment system with is going to be more complex.

Does this bigger and better alternative have to be a hopelessly complex one? I don't think so. But then, I don't think the added paperwork of having to keep track of a dozen personality traits (rather than just one neat and simple "alignment") for each player character and for every NPC of significance is too complex. (And, really, that's what my "Virtues & Vices" system will boil down to: a dozen quantifiable personality traits.)