Alignmentless C&C

[Lucifer_Draconus]

I know this has been most likely covered before but I couldn't find such a topic when I searched.

Anybody run C&C alignmentless ? If so , how did it work out for you ? Plus , if you did , did you use a personality & trait system instead ? When I finally run a C&C (or RMC/RMX) game I plan it to be alignment-less. I dislike the arbitariness (sp?) & vagueness of Alignment systems in C&C & AD&D/D&D 3.x. Though Paladium has a good one. I'd like some advice on how to work a alignment-less campaign.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

[Treebore]

Change all "Protection from X, Y, Z" spells to "Protection from Enemies". Also make similar changes to all such wording within spell descriptions.
_________________
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

[serleran]

There was a post by the ex-serleran a long time back regarding such a game and how he had worked that in, but it was lost in the "great debacle purge" and is no more.

But, suffice to say, yes, at least one of us serlerans has done this type of game, and it was done without relying on "personality" or "trait" which are just alignments renamed -- instead, what was done was to create a value called Dogma which was related to individual religions in the game. When an action was performed that ran contrary to this, Dogma was affected -- if it was to a certain point, "bad things" happened. This, too, was just another way to have alignment without calling it such.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Buttmonkey]

Treebore wrote:
Change all "Protection from X, Y, Z" spells to "Protection from Enemies". Also make similar changes to all such wording within spell descriptions.

Another approach is to say that PCs don't have alignments, but everyone else (i.e., NPCs, monsters, and intelligent items) does. That way you don't have to change spell descriptions (assuming the party doesn't turn on itself).

If you go without alignments, I'd suggest imposing some house rules to prevent problems. E.g., no PC vs. PC violence, PCs should be run/designed so that they can cooperate in a team environment. If you want to run evil parties where players turn on each other, I think that should be announced up front so people know what to expect going in.

[Lucifer_Draconus]

I'm thinking I'll state that creating overly evil or chaotic oriented characters are taboo. I mean , I don't want mass murderers or arsonists or PCs that can't work with others in the group. They should be considered generally 'good' in nature. But if the characters or one of their group does break laws their will be in game consequences for their actions.

The characters will start out as friends from the same town & grew up together. So players will have to take that in count when designing their character & their background.

If I do end up using alignments after all , I'll most likely use Palladium ones or a system similar to PBs alignments.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

[Maliki]

I don't bother with alignments a whole lot for PCs, they normally write something down, but I don't hold them to it (other than a paladin). Players are basically the "good guys" the monsters are the "bad guys'.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[Lord Dynel]

Iam_Who_Iam wrote:
I'm thinking I'll state that creating overly evil or chaotic oriented characters are taboo. I mean , I don't want mass murderers or arsonists or PCs that can't work with others in the group. They should be considered generally 'good' in nature. But if the characters or one of their group does break laws their will be in game consequences for their actions.

The characters will start out as friends from the same town & grew up together. So players will have to take that in count when designing their character & their background.

If I do end up using alignments after all , I'll most likely use Palladium ones or a system similar to PBs alignments.

Well, I think you spelled it out pretty well right here. I'd nix all the law/chaos alignments, spells, and effects and just go with "good" or "evil" (or "neither/neutral"). That's pretty much all you need to know, plus most spells will work just fine - unless that's what you're trying to get away from. Simple, effective and to the point.
_________________
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.

[icanhashealingpotion]

Law & Chaos can be interesting. I rather like the idea of a chaotic group of demons that outnumber devils 10 to 1, but could never get organized, so they've been at a stalemate for millennia.

Or the tension between an LG paladin and a CG cleric - one has to follow the laws and rules, and the other feels the ends justify the means.

So long as the mechanics provide opportunity for additional conflict, I'm all for them.

[Lord Dynel]

icanhashealingpotion wrote:
Law & Chaos can be interesting. I rather like the idea of a chaotic group of demons that outnumber devils 10 to 1, but could never get organized, so they've been at a stalemate for millennia.

Or the tension between an LG paladin and a CG cleric - one has to follow the laws and rules, and the other feels the ends justify the means.

So long as the mechanics provide opportunity for additional conflict, I'm all for them.

I agree with you, sir. I have no problem with alignments, personally. But I can see how it can be viewed as an unnecessary mechanic. I've heard many of the arguments that people have about being stifled, or pigeon-holed, into acting a certain way determined at the start of a campaign or face the repercussions of not doing so. Having all the actions of all the beings in the universe put into these nine boxes seem a little trite to some. I do understand the arguments, I've just never had the issue myself. But some do, and i appreciate that!
Going with an alignment-less system would be fine I suppose. I think it might make the paladin a little superfluous and some spells worthless, but it is possible, I'd say.
_________________
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.

[DangerDwarf]

While not alignmentless, I drop back to older D&D alignments. Lawful, Chaotic or Nuetral.

4e alignments work well too; Good, Evil, Unaligned. Then add the two extremes of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil.

[Zebulon]

You could replace with the Allegiance system of d20 Modern. People can have no allegiance at all; paladins must have allegiance to Law and Good; clerics to their Church and their deity; demons to Chaos and Evil; etc. This is alignmentless that doesn't preclude some aligned creatures and thus does not requires to modify some rules.
_________________
www.lythia.com: Free resources for Harn but also adaptable to any medieval setting.

[nikkigurlie89]

I have to say the new alignments are one of the few good things to come out of the DND4th. But that is just my opinion But I think my favorite alignment system has been mentioned, it's Palladium's. They have a lot less to bog down the character but they offer some cool different ways to view personalities.

[Lord Dynel]

nikkigurlie89 wrote:
I have to say the new alignments are one of the few good things to come out of the DND4th. But that is just my opinion But I think my favorite alignment system has been mentioned, it's Palladium's. They have a lot less to bog down the character but they offer some cool different ways to view personalities.

Okay, I have to ask...is the alignment system in 4e that much better than that of previous editions? I know they pretty much did away with specific alignments, with the exception of LG and CE, but maybe I'm missing the appeal.
I agree with the Palladium system. ?It's been a long time since I've looked at that...since my old Heroes Unlimited days in the early 90's. I always thought it was fairly similar to D&D's system, though. *shrug*

Welcome to the Crusade, by the way, nikkigurlie89!
_________________
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.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Okay, I have to ask...is the alignment system in 4e that much better than that of previous editions? I know they pretty much did away with specific alignments, with the exception of LG and CE, but maybe I'm missing the appeal.
Welcome to the Crusade, by the way, nikkigurlie89!

I didn't care for the draconian revision to the alignment system in 4e. I like the RP opportunities having definitely aligned characters in a group presents. I favor games that have significant interaction between the PCs, so when there are disparate alignments (none evil, of course) within the party, it makes for some entertaining sessions.

Sir Osis of Liver

[DangerDwarf]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Okay, I have to ask...is the alignment system in 4e that much better than that of previous editions?

Yep.

It does away with the crummy "Is he more CG or NG?" and replaces it with simple, versatile, useful "good" and "evil".

The inclusion of the super shiny LG and mega evil CE allows it to keep some standard D&D tropes in an alignment system that you are far less likely to largely ignore.

[nikkigurlie89]

4th does replace it wth a good and evil. And it does simplify it. I know there aren't THAT many problems with the old system unless you have a DM who is a alignment-natzi, the type who loves to tell you that you have suddenly changed alignments.

As for Palladium system I am most familiar with the robotech rpg since it is the most recent of the Palladium systems i have played in. Scrupulous is where i have a tenancy to fall into.

[serleran]

Palladium is OK, but there are a lot of cross-over issues. For example, Anarchist and Unscrupulous are very close, but differ on certain points (at least, how the alignments are defined in RIFTS -- 15 point structures.) Also, the lack of a neutral alignment, to me, makes it very odd -- I prefer that everyone is neutral, with individual actions being lawful, good, or evil (rarely chaotic.)
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[DangerDwarf]

serleran wrote:
Also, the lack of a neutral alignment, to me, makes it very odd -- I prefer that everyone is neutral, with individual actions being lawful, good, or evil (rarely chaotic.)

See, I always felt the inclusion of neutrality was odd and that True Neutral was completely unrealistic.

[Treebore]

DangerDwarf wrote:
See, I always felt the inclusion of neutrality was odd and that True Neutral was completely unrealistic.

I agree that True Neutral is completely unrealistic for humans, and similar races. I see such an alignment only being possible by "alien" creatures like elementals, and such. Maybe, just maybe, a Druid could largely adhere to a True Neutral outlook, but like a Paladin and being Lawful Good, they likely would not be able to adhere to it 100% of the time. Humans cannot live up to an ideal 100% of the time in real life so I don't expect them to in an RPG either. As long as they act appropriately 51% of the time, and don't do anything aggregious. Paladins, and Druids if they have to be "true" neutral, I would require 75% adherence and no big deviations to their alignment. Since they would be representing an ideological ideal.
_________________
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

[serleran]

I did not say true neutral. In my personal view of the world, I'd classify everyone, typically, as neutral evil -- that is, selfish.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[DangerDwarf]

serleran wrote:
I did not say true neutral. In my personal view of the world, I'd classify everyone, typically, as neutral evil -- that is, selfish.

Didn't intend to imply that ya did Serl. I threw the TN in there just as a gripe about it in general.

[nikkigurlie89]

I have to agree with dangerdwarf though. In our games the DM's always threw out true neutral. The only true neutral creatures are like bears or like animals who'se greatest goal in life is the next meal. They are simply trying to live and get buy (although it's sometimes hard to tell >_< after all my first game we were attacked by bears) . It was always too hard to adhere to those ideas of just being neutral to all things.

[serleran]

Quote:
It was always too hard to adhere to those ideas of just being neutral to all things.

That's a misunderstanding of what true neutral means, but, I won't belabor the point. If one finds the alignment difficult to use, then ignore it. Personally, I would rather step backwards and use Classic D&D alignment, minus one: Lawful and Chaotic. That would end a lot of issues, but create other ones (namely regarding good / evil.)
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Treebore]

I think the D&D alignment system has always worked just fine. The only problems I have ever seen with it is how overly stringent alignment was enforced, or totally ignored, even though it was supposed to actually matter according to the DM.

In other words, I think people (CK/GM/DM) think when you pick an alignment that you must adhere to it 100% of the time. You don't. Just most of the time. Not even Paladins have to adhere to their tenants 100% of the time. They definitely cannot do blatant violations of it either.

Most of the time is 50.00001% of the time. In my opinion Paladins should strictly follow their alignment guide lines about 80% of the time, with no clear violations, ever, without suffering consequences. Clerics should be about 70% of the time, with no clear violations.

I bet in games where the idea of most of the time being 50.0001% of time there are very few alignment issues dampening anyone's fun.
_________________
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

[nikkigurlie89]

serleran wrote:
That's a misunderstanding of what true neutral means, but, I won't belabor the point. If one finds the alignment difficult to use, then ignore it. Personally, I would rather step backwards and use Classic D&D alignment, minus one: Lawful and Chaotic. That would end a lot of issues, but create other ones (namely regarding good / evil.)

I agree, no point belaboring it. But as to the good and evil you could just change evil spells to be chaotic and good spells to be lawful. Now it's very black and white and not holding true to a lot of things, but it would create some interesting pandemonium amongst party members and mages or maybe i just have a sick twisted sense of humor when dealing with disobedient party members

[Sir Osis of Liver]

serleran wrote:
That's a misunderstanding of what true neutral means, but, I won't belabor the point. If one finds the alignment difficult to use, then ignore it. Personally, I would rather step backwards and use Classic D&D alignment, minus one: Lawful and Chaotic. That would end a lot of issues, but create other ones (namely regarding good / evil.)

That kind of system works great if you're trying to convert Modesitt's Recluce saga into a game setting. That might be fun to try at some point.

Sir Osis of Liver

[ghostSmacker]

To answer the OP, we just started our first C&C campaign too , and it's alignmentless all the way for us.

Firstly everybody was having such a blast rolling up characters and getting back to basics after the clutter & and number crunching misery of 3.5 that we just plain forget about alignment.

Everybody came up with fun and interesting characters and we just got on with the game. Evil, selfish or unhelpful types aren't exactly banned in our games, but they do have a very short life expectancy and usually only provide a brief comedy interlude (we still reminisce about Tarquin Fuquit, 'master' pickpocket...)

Historically we always did use alignment, including one particularly long campaign where a sense of right and wrong was thematically important and we used very strict alignment tracking. The player arguments and 'in-character' bickering was the stuff of legends, but it ultimately burned everybody out. It ended with nobody trying to save the druid from the shambling mound that had engulfed him, because despite some of the vehement animosity that existed between the other characters, everybody agreed that they hated his whiney fence sitting more.

For us now, alignment has gone the way of the 5' Step and Attacks of Opportunity. It always seemed to create more problems than it solved and we just don't need it. We role-play it all the way now...

As for game mechanics... hmm, I guess Protection from Do-gooders, and Protection from Evil-doers works for us. Action and intent are what's important.

[Aldarron]

To be blunt, the use of alignments for player characters is a ridiculous, artificially restrictive idea that made little sense in the old days and makes even less now. In thirty years of gaming I have never used them for PC's and my games have been the better for it. Alignments are a useful tool for fleshing out NPC's and monsters but why would anyone place such fake constraints on a player charcter? Imagine the author of you favorite works of fiction writing characters that way. There is a word for it - cardboard cutouts. I think alignments for PC's is one of those vestigal things - like the qwerty keyboard - that arose for some reason - probably the old alignment languages thing, and has just been perpetuated out of habit.

[moriarty777]

Aldarron wrote:
To be blunt, the use of alignments for player characters is a ridiculous, artificially restrictive idea that made little sense in the old days and makes even less now. In thirty years of gaming I have never used them for PC's and my games have been the better for it. Alignments are a useful tool for fleshing out NPC's and monsters but why would anyone place such fake constraints on a player charcter? Imagine the author of you favorite works of fiction writing characters that way. There is a word for it - cardboard cutouts. I think alignments for PC's is one of those vestigal things - like the qwerty keyboard - that arose for some reason - probably the old alignment languages thing, and has just been perpetuated out of habit.

Well actually, loosely speaking it can work. The interesting struggle between Law and Chaos in the early Elric / Stormbringer series worked quite nicely. I'm thinking that authors like Moorcock might have been an influence here. As for good and evil... well... that notion has been around for at least a couple of thousand years. Law (or Order if you prefer) is a bit different from the Good vs Evil struggle. Using a 'simplified' alignment as the older D&D system would make for an interesting game if you are going for that kind of 'theme' and the same can obviously be said of Good vs Evil.

However, I agree that alignment just becomes quirky in AD&D when you consider it is the merging of these two concepts with Neutrality thrown in for the notion of 'balance'.

I have played various incarnations of D&D for 20 years now and Alignment is almost a non-issue. It's on the character sheet... it is considered a bit when the character is first being made in terms of developing a personality but that's about it. Spells like Detect 'Alignment' just don't see use in my games nor do spells that offer Protection Against 'Alignment'. The only minor exception is the ability when it comes to a Paladin for a protection against and even then... I seem to go more with the intent.

All that said, I think I do like the Law (Order) / Chaos angle more than notions of good and evil since those are moral distinctions determined by intent and subsequent result anyway.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Lord Dynel]

First off, I'd like to say "Welcome" to Aldarron and ghostSmacker! Welcome to the Crusae, fellas!

I use alignments, as written, and have never had a problem with them. Can the game go alignmentless? Sure, it can. Since I've never had a problem with it, I'll probably continue it use it.

As far as the BD&D alignment system goes, it should work as well as the new 4e alignment system, with the exclusion of LG and CE. If I went with a more basic system, I would probably be more inclined to adapt the 4e one, mainly because I like the "Unaligned" moniker. It means a little more, to me, being unaligned that it would be to be neutral.
_________________
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.