Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silveras" data-source="post: 1765720" data-attributes="member: 6271">First, I think this is more of a problem for long-time players who played 1st and 2nd Edition, where alignment was much more of an issue. So, remember that you are not playing those versions anymore, and re-read the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide on the subject: try to note where you may be carrying old rules forward. Second, for those who advocate dumping alignment, that is one solution. However, it is only a solution that works for some campaigns. If a campaign is about the "shades of grey" moral uncertainties, dropping (or reducing the impact of) alignment is appropriate. However, for a campaign about Heroes vs. Villains, alignment can be (and is for me) a valuable tool. So.. that brings us to what I do. First, I posted my take on alignments in my world on a web page for my players to have access to. I also include the information in my "House Rules" document. I am pleased to say that the current SRD take is pretty close to what I have used since late in 2nd Edition. The problem is that people see alignment as a confining box that limits your options. That is not what alignment should be. The alignment restrictions on classes, for example, are not meant to say "You must behave this way to be this class." They should be viewed as "Only people who believe and act this way are suited to this class, and so others would not want to become a member." It is like the "You must be this tall to go on this ride sign" at amusement parks; it is meant to screen out people who should not be there, as opposed to implying that someone must be stretched on a rack before they can go on the ride. What follows is a very "geeky"/"nerdy" approach ... feel free to skip:To illustrate this for my players, I have them think about their character's personality and history as step 1 of character creation. For personality, they pick 2 to 5 Ethical (Law/Chaos) and 2 to 5 Moral (Good/Evil) traits, and rate them from -15 to +15. Negative numbers represent a tendency toward the Lawful or Evil side of the trait; positive numbers represent a tendency toward the Chaotic or Good side. I then have them total each set of numbers and divide by 3. The result determines what alignment the character starts with. -3 to +3 on either "axis" is Neutral. -3.01 or lower is Lawful or Evil; +3.01 or higher is Chaotic or Good. Why not just average them ? Because everyone winds up Neutral that way. It is hard not to be Neutral if you only pick 2 traits; people who want to be really Good or Lawful or Chaotic need to pick a few traits to get there. Also, a character can have a couple of slightly "negative" traits mixed in with his/her "positive" ones, which adds depth to the character. So, what are the good points of this system ?<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player understands how I view the character's personality and alignment</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The player gets to create the personality s/he likes, and knows how it will fit into the campaign, up front</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The character can have a few flaws as well as strengths, which adds depth to the character</li> </ol>What are the bad points ?<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">People who are math-challenged need help to do it. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It is a bit more complicated than saying "I'm Neutral Good"</li> </ol>In the end, as DM, it is your job to communicate how important you expect alignments to be in the campaign, and how you view each one. If you and you players are not "on the same page", you need to get there quickly to avoid arguments later. For those who are curious, my long-winded take on alignments can be found on the site linked in my sig.</blockquote>

Verification