To align or not to align?

Naleax · Post by **Naleax** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:49 pm

I read Davis Chenault's article regarding his take on alignment in The Crusader #6. After reading it I have to say that I Agree with him almost 100%. Not sure if everyone has read this but Davis basically talks about his disdain for alignment, his choice to get rid of it in his own games and why.

In my most recent C&C campaign we did away with alignment, but it has crept back in to the game by necessity of the rules. My only real issue with doing away with alignments all together is how it affects certain spells and abilities in the rules. I'm speaking of the various protection and similar spells which are based almost entirely on the use of alignments.

By virtue of onces actions in game play in accordance with the CK's setting characters are going to be deemed either evil or good by their peers and by their lesser or betters. Because of this I've thought about secretly aligning characters as the CK and applying rules on spell effects and abilities accordingly, but not sure if this is a good idea.

I am forced to agree with Davis' article but am in a quandry as to how to treat the various alignment affecting rules. Gosh darn Davis, why couldn't you have added a solution in your article!

Does anyone have any experience with removing alignment from their games and if so how did you deal with the various spells and abilities that are dependent on alignment?

Naleax

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:11 pm

Going back a few years *cough*, when the Dragonlance setting book first came out it had a section on alignment that I thought was pretty cool (cool enough that I used it for my normal D&D game). The characters all started out as Neutral. There was a small alignment track with good at one end, evil on the other. Based on the character's actions, the DM would adjust their position on the alignment track "up" or "down". Naturally this ignored the issue of Chaos and Law.

It sounds like this is kind of where your ideas are going...and it's not a bad place at all. It just involves a bit more record keeping on both the player's and CK's part.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:16 pm

I use different alignment, but I like the concept of some extraplanar force wanting to rule the world through their muppets, the clerics and paladins of the world. Besides, if there is no alignment, then are demons really evil, or maybe they're misunderstood?

Oh, and alignment language. Yeah. Got to keep that.

So, umm, I guess I disagree with Davis.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Deogolf · Post by **Deogolf** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:54 pm

I just use good, neutral, and evil.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:35 pm

For spells I change alignments to "enemy" and "friend/ally", it works pretty good as a replacement for alignments.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Relaxo · Post by **Relaxo** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:18 am

I was going to suggest the very same thing, tree!

Naleax · Post by **Naleax** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:59 pm

Go0gleplex wrote:
Going back a few years *cough*, when the Dragonlance setting book first came out it had a section on alignment that I thought was pretty cool (cool enough that I used it for my normal D&D game). The characters all started out as Neutral. There was a small alignment track with good at one end, evil on the other. Based on the character's actions, the DM would adjust their position on the alignment track "up" or "down". Naturally this ignored the issue of Chaos and Law.

It sounds like this is kind of where your ideas are going...and it's not a bad place at all. It just involves a bit more record keeping on both the player's and CK's part.

I like this idea. I'd like to look at it further. Is that one of the DL series books or the Hard Cover?

Treebore wrote:
For spells I change alignments to "enemy" and "friend/ally", it works pretty good as a replacement for alignments.

Geez that so simple why didn't i think of that. Thanks Tree!

serleran wrote:
I use different alignment, but I like the concept of some extraplanar force wanting to rule the world through their muppets, the clerics and paladins of the world. Besides, if there is no alignment, then are demons really evil, or maybe they're misunderstood?

I agree i just don't see how you can escape alignment entirely. I think i'll use a combination of ideas from this thread.

I like the idea of the CK tracking players alignment on a scale, maintaining just three alignments - good, neutral and evil. and changing the spells to enemy and ally. I think a combination of the three should work well.

Thanks guys for chiming in with some excellent ideas.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:59 pm

I use them, but do not force too rigidly how character's behave. Mainly alignment has seemed to become a mechanical effect based on who can benefit from certain spells/magic items, etc.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:26 pm

It was the Dragonlance hardcover.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Keolander · Post by **Keolander** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:32 pm

After long suffering over what to do about the Alignment system, it basically took D&D 4E, of all things, for me to revamp it. I now have 5 alignments. Pick one and voila. I still use the X/Y axis.

X - Good, Neutral, Evil

Y - Lawful, Chaotic

Good covers a broad range of beliefs and ideas. It boils down to doing the right thing, but with leeway. I especially wanted to do away with the Lawful Stupid idealized Paladin that we all came to know and loathe. Generally speaking, Good people uphold Good as the best possible tenet as its not Destructive (Evil), Inflexible to the point of Tyranny (Lawful) nor generally speaking Insane (Chaotic). The Elohim, beings of pure Divine Fire are Good. No society larger than a small group can be Good (generally they must be Lawful or Evil) simply because of the nature of controlling others does not promote the universal concept of Good.

Neutral is the category most beings (animal and humanoid) fall on the spectrum. Its basically the alignment of those who don't care one way or another. Whatever the society, they adapt to it with the caveat of "Ok, I'll do what you say within reason, but leave me alone". Elementals are Neutral.

Evil, like good, covers a broad range of beliefs and ideas. It boils down to 'Get it by hook or by crook, but just get it'. The ends totally justify the means. Sociopathic Narcissism is probably the best descriptor, with the caveat that 'Hey, I'm Evil, but I'm not insane (Chaotic) and don't want to Unmake/Consume Reality like Tharizdun and the Undead'. Beings of tainted Divine Fire (Demons) are Evil.

Lawful states plainly that Order, above all else is what is to be desired. Even if that means people get squashed along the way. Even if the law in question is nonsensical and/or outdated. This is the alignment of Zealots who will justify almost any action as long as its within the confines of The Law. The Blinding Light religion is the epitome of Lawful. The High God (Creator) is essentially Lawful, though he is far more like a Deistic Creator than an active participant (like The High God in DragonLance).

Chaotic is the alignment of Insanity/Madness writ large. Chaotic beings want to Unmake the world/reality. The Undead are Chaotic because they hunger to consume all life to quench the void within them. Tharizdun is a Chaotic being who came into existence when reality was formed, a being of tainted Entropy. Qlippothic Elementals (Temple of Elemental Evil beings, basically) are Chaotic because they seek to end their suffering by destroying.
_________________
Lord Lamorek Steelguard, Baron of Calx Mons Montis - The Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:19 pm

Personally I only really concern myself with alignments with regards to Clerics, Paladins, and Druids.

They are expected to be examples for their deities worshipers to follow. So I expect them to behave appropriately in public. In private not so much, but still they must stay solidly within the expected guidelines.

Everyone else just needs to behave in a manner that allows the other 3 classes to work with them and cast spells on them. Beyond that I really don't worry about it.

My only problem has been my opinion of how each alignment must act strongly differs from many other DM/CK's, as well as other players.

Like the Paladin, I look at them being much more like Judge Dredd, just with a little more "compassion" for those who may be just more down on their luck than truly evil or criminal. If someone comes up on their Detect evil as evil? kill them, no if's, and's, or but's.

Plus honor and fair play are only reserved for those who also believe in it, like other Paladin's, Knights, Clerics, and other "people" with a reputation for also practicing it.

Scum bag villains? Nope. Kill them however is necessary. The only exception being use of poisons to kill, but not to capture. Using a paralytic poison to capture someone is perfectly acceptable.

So as you can see my views will send a certain percentage of people into a melt down.

So that is where I have a problem with alignments, getting people to agree on what they mean.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

dunbruha · Post by **dunbruha** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:38 pm

I like alignments for role-playing purposes (as a guide, not a straitjacket). However, the only characters with detectable alignments in my game are clerics (and paladins) of good or evil deities, undead, and residents of the aligned outer planes (hells, abyss, heaven, etc.)

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:19 am

dunbruha wrote:
However, the only characters with detectable alignments in my game are clerics (and paladins) of good or evil deities, undead, and residents of the aligned outer planes (hells, abyss, heaven, etc.)

I've seen that idea before but have yet to give it a try.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

zombiehands · Post by **zombiehands** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:51 am

For alignment spells I go back to early editions of D&D where protection from evil protected you from "outsiders" (3e term). So the same spell protected you from angles, elements and demons.

clavis123 · Post by **clavis123** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:46 pm

I suggest replacing the traditional Alignment terms with direct references to the spiritual powers whose interests beings ultimately serve. So, rather than being "Lawful Evil", a character's Alignment would be "Devils", "Hell", or "Diabolical". Under such a system, Alignment doesn't really represent a character's actions. Rather, it would be a designation of which side the character's soul is essentially "aligned" with in the struggle for domination of the cosmos. A being would not usually know what side they they are actually serving. Most people may believe they are on the side of the Angels, but might actually be promoting Evil or Chaos. A being aligned with the Demons might often do good deeds, but he does them for selfish or mad reasons. A person aligned with Heaven might even be a criminal, but ultimately what he does will serve the interests of the Angels. So, the PCs might be surprised when the a local thief detects as "Angelic", while the High Priest of Heaven detects as "Demonic".
_________________
The Engine of Oracles: Creations For Gaming
http://engineoforacles.wordpress.com/

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:18 pm

I once mused about dropping alignment from my game (and using things such as protection from foes, detect malicious intent, and similar things). I thought long and hard about it and eventually talked with my group. They were the ones that actually convinced me to leave it in.

It wasn't so much a problem with me, but I thought that codified ethics and morals that were being used mainly as a game mechanic was a little unrealistic (some funk I was in, I reckon). But my players convinced me that it was a bit more than that. Most players, and thusly characters, behave a certain way as dictated bytheir moral compass. Whether characters behave in a way identical to their players or not (meaning people playing an alignment contrary to their own behavior), the character will follow a certain alignment. My players believe that in spite of a particular characters actions (either PC or NPC) at a given time, their morals and ethics are ingrained at their cores. They believed that it made more sense, realitically, to detect an evil character not being evil at that moment than it would be detecting a nonevil character contemplating an evil action. The former would detect the truly evil character, where the latter would give more "false readings" than anything else.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Lucifer_Draconus · Post by **Lucifer_Draconus** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:44 pm

I'm not a big fan of alignments & never have been. If I run games I may just toss them out & use a personality trait system. Concerning detect & protection from spells I'll get creative. My GM likes using alignments & uses Palladiums alignments in his RM2 game. He's the kind of guy who will NOT run a evil game EVER! When he's a player as bad as he'll get is a good leaning selfish type. He can't understand why people like me & our friend Adam like grey or dark leaning PCs. I consider myself a fairly good guy .. some would say neutral as I want little governmental or societal intervention in my life ( I'm a staunch Constitutionalist/Libertarian that borders on Anarchist). But I like playing greyer PCs PCs who may kill a person because he's a threat to him & his companions & not think about it on a moral level. It was a threat , that's it. A rogue who's not affraid to cross the law to get what he wants but not go out of the way to hurt others. One of my favorite Palladium alignments is Abberant.. I do have issue with it being considered evil but that's me.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

ArgoForg · Post by **ArgoForg** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:39 am

I'm odd in my group in that I actually prefer alignments. I actually prefer the nine-point alignment system, as opposed to the BECMI three-point alignment, the 4E 'line of' alignments, or the 3.5/Pathfinder 'I don't like that restriction so I'll find a prestige class that doesn't have it' alignment system.
I realize that some people see it as a straitjacket or a role-playing crutch, but my personal opinion is that alignment works as a good "checks and balances" system, especially for some of the character archetypes who have a lot of extra powers-- paladins and druids (I have not been averse to adding bards and monks to that list), for instance. Enforcing alignment restrictions tends to make those character archetypes a little more rare and more enjoyable when a player really wants to play them and is willing to roleplay consistent with the alignment.

In fact, I'm actually more inclined as a CK to give bigger individual roleplaying XP totals to players who run alignment-restricted characters within their alignment than those who roleplayed about as well, but without restriction. That's just my personal take on it.
_________________
- "Sorry, I just happen to prefer games where the GM is an actual arbitrator and not the wall to roll dice off to decide what happens."

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:22 pm

ArgoForg wrote:
I'm odd in my group in that I actually prefer alignments. I actually prefer the nine-point alignment system, as opposed to the BECMI three-point alignment, the 4E 'line of' alignments, or the 3.5/Pathfinder 'I don't like that restriction so I'll find a prestige class that doesn't have it' alignment system.
I realize that some people see it as a straitjacket or a role-playing crutch, but my personal opinion is that alignment works as a good "checks and balances" system, especially for some of the character archetypes who have a lot of extra powers-- paladins and druids (I have not been averse to adding bards and monks to that list), for instance. Enforcing alignment restrictions tends to make those character archetypes a little more rare and more enjoyable when a player really wants to play them and is willing to roleplay consistent with the alignment.

In fact, I'm actually more inclined as a CK to give bigger individual roleplaying XP totals to players who run alignment-restricted characters within their alignment than those who roleplayed about as well, but without restriction. That's just my personal take on it.

+1
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:54 pm

Hey, Go0gs... try to quote something. I wanna see if I fixed the quote problem with your account. I'm pretty sure its caused by BBCode being disabled.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:07 pm

serleran wrote:
Hey, Go0gs... try to quote something. I wanna see if I fixed the quote problem with your account. I'm pretty sure its caused by BBCode being disabled.

Testing...testing...

or should that be trolling? Whoo hoo..it works!

(we now return to the established thread)
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Kos · Post by **Kos** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:24 am

I always give loose play to alignments, noting character actions that are particularly evil good whatever. Just a couple of points...

1: anachronistic or outside views...we are a little bound up in modern ideas of virtue or vice which leads to...

2:violence in a (magical) pseudo-medieval society...I really just can't see the "lawful stupid" idea being that valid. It seems stupid for characters to act this way because well... it is. Good is not necessarily non-violent in the context of a society with murderous brigands/knights roaming the wilderness (not to mention orcs and powerful magicians), violence is a necessity. Virtuous medieval types were not hesitant to shed a bit of blood, especially those from the noble/warrior class. There's this medi. source that has a good example called The Murder of Charles the Good from the 12th cen. In it Charles is a good sort of fellow, reliving famine in Flanders, giving alms ect. However, when a noble family in his domain raids some peasants he without hesitation puts them to the sword and torches their tower. Does he have honor and virtue? Yeah, but he doesn't hesitate to strike before struck himself; it's just the way the (feudal) game is played.

ThrorII · Post by **ThrorII** » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:39 pm

Kos wrote:
2:violence in a (magical) pseudo-medieval society...I really just can't see the "lawful stupid" idea being that valid. It seems stupid for characters to act this way because well... it is. Good is not necessarily non-violent in the context of a society with murderous brigands/knights roaming the wilderness (not to mention orcs and powerful magicians), violence is a necessity. Virtuous medieval types were not hesitant to shed a bit of blood, especially those from the noble/warrior class.

+1

I played a paladin (my first EVER) in Naelex's game a little over a year ago. I viewed "Lawful Good" through the context of the crusades and Templars.

Reynald the Paladin stood for the virtues and betterment of the Pantheon of Light. He prostelitzied (sp), he encouraged others to follow the faith, he healed, he helped the downtrodden, he even built a shrine. Those who actively opposed his faith's growing were 'heathens' and 'infidels' who were to be smited unmercifully (unless they asked for mercy and agreed to a) convert, or b) no longer pursecute and flee.

"Lawful" meant upholding the rule of the Baron, and the rightful rulers of the region. Which meant kicking the sh!t out of those humans and humanoids who disrupted the barony.

"Good" meant promoting his religion (which was good) and helping those who needed help. Which meant kicking the sh!t out of those who would hurt the helpless or were actively or diametrically opposed to the goals of the faith.

Some of what he did wasn't "good" in the sense of "Lawful stupid". One churches good can mean the destruction of another persons church.

Mark Hall · Post by **Mark Hall** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:51 pm

I use alignment, but for the vast majority of characters, it doesn't matter too much. In fact, in our current group of 7, there's no one to whom alignment really matters. Even our clerics are of deities who explicitly don't care about alignment (Gond Wonderbringer and Tempus).

So, for gaming purposes, I know what alignment the party is, but they don't.

(I also use a third axis in alignment... Polite/Bastard. It's not existentially TRUE like Law/Chaos or Good/Evil, but it does inform me who everyone is, more or less).

TheMetal1 · Post by **TheMetal1** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:35 pm

I'm a fan of the 9 alignments and do intend at some point, to use the Hackmaster 4.0 version of Alignment Tracking with consequences for each player. It's a wheel and not overly difficult to use.

As anothe option there is always Palladiums version of Alignment which gives a slightly different take on the classic 9.
_________________
R is among the most menacing of sounds. Thats why they call it murder, not muckduck. DWIGHT SHRUTE, The Office

Ogre · Post by **Ogre** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:57 pm

Treebore wrote:
For spells I change alignments to "enemy" and "friend/ally", it works pretty good as a replacement for alignments.

ooooo, stolen!

Wordwarrior · Post by **Wordwarrior** » Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:02 pm

Never been crazy about alignment systems. I use them, but only in the most superficial way as a very general guideline for character behavior. I'm more interested in my players playing their characters consistently, than trying to buttonhole them under a certain alignment label.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:50 pm

Wordwarrior wrote:
I'm more interested in my players playing their characters consistently, than trying to buttonhole them under a certain alignment label.

Agreed. I only really concern myself with alignment with Paladins, Clerics, and Druids. Because religion, ethics, morals, and therefore alignment, are a big part of how they need to be played.

Otherwise, I just want to see consistent, non evil, play.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:22 pm

These days, I treat alignment as "cosmic sides" that are more like "teams" than like fundamental concepts that define morality or how the universe works.

I tend to prefer a law/chaos scheme without good/evil. I've been toying with the idea of a domination/freedom scheme, which would be similar, but not quite the same as law/chaos.
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log

GameDoc · Post by **GameDoc** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:30 am

The whole "lawful stupid" never made sense to me either. I could lay out my thoughts on it, but I think there is an image that sums it up well.

So here: