Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guilt Puppy" data-source="post: 469835" data-attributes="member: 6521">I'm wondering if anyone's tried dumping the alignment system (in some manner), what mechanical problems have come up because of it, and how well it worked?I'm personally tired of all the "can a good character use poison" et cetera arguments, and am bothered by the shades of grey it cuts out of any campaign world (evil is evil, and good kills it!).Also, current thought for revising it:Alignment still exists, but there are two types of alignment: Tenuous and fundamental. Most creatures, including most characters, will be tenuous: Their alignment is not a tangible thing, and has no in-game effect aside from serving as a prerequisite (for classes, mainly). This means that you can't detect evil on a lowly rogue... He's just not that evil.Then, there is fundamental alignment, which actually means something within the game world. Outsiders have a fundamental alignment, and so do certain native creatures: Good, evil, law, or chaos is actually an intrinsic part of their being.Further, some character classes would attain fundamental alignment. Paladins would become fundamentally LG at a certain level... Clerics of their deity's alignment would, as well. Monks would probably become fundamentally Lawful at a certain level... Blackguards, and so on. (basically, the really religious classes)Thoughts on all this?</blockquote>