No.
Not now, not ever.
And what about that guy you hate, Steve? Does everyone think he’s evil? Even his mum? What about the guy he met two days ago in the pub, who had a great night talking with him?
Steve is evil, no doubt.
The guy from the bar is gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), so that doesn't count.About the topic :
I agree that the concept of alignment is stereotype. In many situations it doesn't make sense.
But honestly it would be difficult to switch to a non aligned D&D. Many creatures, classes and abilities would become weird to manage : paladins, evil cults, angels, demons, devils...
With another game ok. Star Wars is strongly built on good vs evil and still there is no alignment. But D&D...
My better advice is to allow some liberty of action outside the range of the alignment. Alignment is not a droid programing. The character can basically do what he wants, it's up to the player to take responsibility and accept eventual alignment changes afterwards in the long run.
|
I too have to say NO to this idea. You get rid of it and you end up with people playing themselves and not their character. Taking away alignment will be an even SHORTER short cut to combat. PC's won't stop to think they'll just think "Hey I can just attack this guy. There are no consequences for my character any longer. KILL EM ALL!"
Besides...it's too 4.0ish to get rid of alignment. That's not the point of Pathfinder. It's not a whole new system folks. We really need to stop with the drastic change ideas. You want to do away with alignment then feel free to house rule that one.
Besides...30 something years of alignment can't be wrong. If the idea of alignment was so bad they would have changed it years ago.
Add another 'no' to the pile. Sure some spells could be improved but alignment needs to stay.
An interesting experiment when it comes to this . . . I played in a modified Spycraft fantasy game, and alignment wasn't "gone," but everyone was, for lack of a better term, "unaligned" unless you took Order, Chaos, Good, or Evil as an interest.
It was a fun campaign, but what I noticed was that aside from my cleric, who took Order and Good for interests, everyone in the party was ultra pragmatic about everything. "I'd really love to save those people, but I don't want to die. Gold doesn't spend when you're dead."
While I know some people intentionally create characters to play this way, and there is nothing wrong with that, the "ultra pragmatist" is one character type among many in the current alignment system, while it almost feels like, without alignment, its the default.
In D&D, a handful of gold is enough for most PCs to dive into the slaver's dungeon, because the good members of the party will want to save the slaves, the lawful members of the party will want to eliminate a threat to stability, and the chaotic characters want to do something.
I really enjoyed that Spycraft campaign, but I did feel a little like I was fighting against the tide trying to be a heroic character. Also, we had one guy that always plays the neutral, pragmatic voice of reason, which is a fun foil to th more zealous characters, but his character stood out far less in this campaign.
Long story short, I really think that alignment, whatever anyone's problems with it, does help to reinforce the feel of the game and how and why things happen the way they do. Don't get rid of it.
I also say No.
Pathfinder is a role-playing game. Alignment sets boundaries that help the players stay in their roles.
Yes, some players will always break down a game system and exploit the loop holes and weak points. The game part of RPG is what they see as fun.
To others the role part of RPG is what they see as fun.
Neither is right or wrong. But if you find yourself in a group that doesn't see things the way you do then, maybe its time to find another group?
As a player I like alignment. It helps with character concept, creation and play.
As a GM I like alignment. It helps me play the NPCs and helps keep problematic players in line.
Cheers
My response earlier was one word. Berevity is nice, but I've decided you deserve a real reply, so here goes.
Alignment makes for two-dimensional gaming. Think of all the people you know. Do any of them fit nicely into the good or evil categories? Maybe you can think of a few who aren’t quite so grey. But then think: does everyone think the same of them? Does everyone think your friend Lucy is a nice girl? Or is she just charismatic and good at leaving behind the people who think she’s evil? Maybe her younger sister hates her? And what about that guy you hate, Steve? Does everyone think he’s evil? Even his mum? What about the guy he met two days ago in the pub, who had a great night talking with him? Surely, then, alignment is more a subjective thing. Maybe ‘good’ actually means “Those people who I get along with and support” and ‘evil’ means “Those who I oppose or dislike.” Let’s get beyond the old-fashioned objectivist way of thinking, and recognise that alignment is subjective – that it’s not about who they are, so much as how you relate to them and them to you.
Alignment isn't entirely subjective. Slavery is Evil. Killing somebody because it was more convienient is Evil. Someone being Good doesn't mean I have to like them, and I'm sure most people have at least one friend who might qualify as Evil. Unless you're a paladin, that's not automatically a dealbreaker.
Life is not simple enough to fit into nine alignment categories.
Those nine categories are broader than you might think. A formian and a dwarf merchant might both be Lawful Neutral. That doesn't mean they think or believe the same things.
The alignment system creates flat characters and destroys the believability of the game. It’s also just a bad mechanic. Here’s how it mainly comes into effect:
1) Detect evil. This often is a short way for players to decide “Do I attack or not?” It’s a short-cut to combat. It encourages people to view their own characters in shallow ways, and takes the depth of moral decision out of the game. Instead of the paladin asking herself whether or not she can tolerate adventuring with this somewhat morally-challenged roguish character, all she has to do is concentrate. If the player declares their rogue is actually neutral, then she’s fine. If the player declares their rogue to be evil, then the paladin instantly has to stop adventuring with them. Instead of an interesting role-playing session regarding the character’s struggle of morality, the issue is worked out by a simple, shallow question to the other character who, more-or-less arbitrarily, decides whether they’re CN or CE.
If detect evil is merely an enemy detector, then your paladin is doing it wrong. A shopkeeper who cheats his customers might be Evil, but that doesn't mean he deserves to die. The paladin might not want to befriend him, but that doesn't mean that murder is the right course of action. (Killing people simply because they don't agree with you is Evil.)
the following discussion has been had far too often:
--Paladin: “I detect evil. Is he evil?”
--Judge: “Er, er, let me check.” <pause as he looks through statistics and finds his alignment listed as NE> “Yes. Oh, wait.” <pause as he looks through spell effects and finds ‘undetectable alignment’ active> “I mean, er, no. No, er, you most certainly don’t detect evil.”
--Paladin: (metagaming) “I think he’s evil. I attack anyway.”
--Fellow-adventurer: “But you can’t do that, you have no evidence. That would be an evil act to provoke a pre-emptive strike against an opponent who appears unarmed and doesn’t detect as evil.”
Then the DM needs to finish reading his notes before speaking. And, as I stated above, detecting as Evil is not a sufficient reason to attack. So the Fellow-adventurer can stop talking after 'appears unarmed'.
What the problem is here is metagaming. Detect Evil so often becomes the spark from which metagaming ensues. It negates good roleplaying, and takes people out of their character’s experience, returning them to the experience of the player who then metagames by reading the judges body language (or accidentally spoken language), something which the character should never know.
I'd say it reduces metagaming, then, because it allows the character an in-game (relatively) definative anser, instead of trying to read the DM's body language if an NPC is trustworthy.
2) Protection from Evil (and Magic Circle). This is one of the most broken spells in the game, completely negating enchantment spells cast by evil spellcasters, whilst having absolutely no effect on the evil-spellcasters-really-close-neutral-(for prestige class reasons (not storyline))-friend. What a ridiculous imbalance. Maybe “Protection from Foe” would work better, simply allowing it to be the subjective decision of the spellcaster (or maybe the recipient), rather than the arbitrariness of alignment. This would pretty much be worked out in the same way that a bard decides who its allies are for affecting them with their music, or a fighter decides who he’s flanking. It would indeed make the spell work in a sensible way, and in the way one might expect, rather than affecting some foes and not affecting others for seemingly random reasons (the alignments of characters and monsters don’t always make sense, especially given their motives).
If a PC or NPC ally acts consistently evil, then they should be Evil, regardless of what that would do to their PrCs.
I've never had a problem with the Magic Circle or Protection Spells. Mostly because most spellcasters have other things to do than cast enchantments, dispelling, or that not all enemies are Evil.3) Holy Word/Blasphemy. These are broken spells anyway, often requiring special rules because of their strange mechanics (like the CR16 half-fiendish advanced remorhaz that was written in to have used its blasphemy to kill an elk earlier in the day, when if would have killed any party member of less than 26th level (i.e. all the APL12 party), had it still had it left). We’re probably better off without them, or at least modifying them heavily.
I am aware of this problem, but its not a problem with the spells themselves: When cast by PCs or NPCs with class levels, they are fair. The trouble is that the half- templates grant them based on HD, which are frequently disproportionate to CR. It's the Half-fiend and half-celestial templates that need to be fixed, not the spells.
The other area where alignment plays a major roles is in whether clerics channel positive or negative energy. And this decision may be better suited, not to alignment, but to whether the cleric is pro-undead or anti-undead. And then forcing this decision to make evil clerics not be able to spontaneously heal is ridiculous. Evil characters want to win, and if winning requires healing (as it frequently does), then they’ll use healing. Or at least they’ll use some kind of patching-up through painkillers and drugs (or magic that emulates these) that have more or less the same effect (with possibly some side effects, like extra aggression and negative after-effects). But even evil clerics should be able to have the power to spontaneously heal their companions, in order that they may have a better chance of winning for their cause.
Evil clerics can heal. They just need to prepare spells. They can't do it spontaneously, but that means that they need undead allies or to use their powers offensively.
So what would I suggest instead of alignment? I’m not sure, but I know it needs changing. Maybe setting up more guidelines for characters, in terms of how they are likely to act (helping players to think through their character more, creating deeper instead of shallower characters). For example:
Are they courageous or cautious?
Are they self-sacrificing or selfish?
Do they care about the rights of others, just their own, or not really anyone’s?
Are they likely to obey the law whatever, obey the law within ‘reason’, obey the law when it suits them, break the law when it suits them, break the law for fun, or purposely break laws at every opportunity that comes their way?
Are they pro-creature (inclusive), pro-sentience (anti-slave), pro-life (anti-unnatural/undead), pro-humanoid (elitist), pro-human (species-ist), pro-regional-human (racist), pro-family (clan mentality), pro-self (selfish)?
Are they judgmental or accepting?
Are they generally friendly and hospitable, or hostile and uncaring?
Are there certain species they favour, and certain they hold prejudice against?Some of these are more roleplaying flavours for people to develop for their characters as they go. Some of these could even be included as numerical statistics (e.g. 1=very courageous, 20=very cautious, and to act as you desire when a dragon swoops at you requires you to role above your courage/caution level (maybe adding bonuses against fear or something).) Some of these may not be helpful at all. Some may be very helpful. And some of you may have better ideas for guidelines or mechanics for this.
I just know that the alignment system, as is, is both unbelievable and mechanically bad. And I know that there’s enough creativity out there for us to come up with something better!
So you want to replace a broad, easily adaptable system with a narrow, complex system that takes control away from PCs and would lead to more character-creation minimaxing?
All of those questions are good ones to ask, to get a feeling for your character's personality, but not everything needs to be written into the rules.
I do think that the alignment descriptions need tweaking, though, to avoid some of the more common arguments. To toot my own horn a bit, my attempt at this task is here.
I don't entirely disagree with Henry. I run into all kinds of problems with self-disciplined characters with a strong sense of personal honor (strong Lawful), who are nonetheless dedicated non-conformist iconoclasts (strong Chaotic). What alignment do they get? Do I split the difference and call it NG?
That said, Law and Chaos and Good and Evil are fundamanetal staples of a fantasy world.
So I split the difference, and use two "tiers".
Mortals get "alignment lite;" they choose an alignment that sort of fits their personality, and are expected to use it as a rough conduct guide, but it's all RP and has little mechanical effect unless they're paladins or something. Detect evil cast on Ross' shopkeeper would fail, because the shopkeeper is a mortal who does not embody anything greater than himself.
Outsiders, on the other hand, get extreme alignments; they embody cosmic principles, and are thus susceptible to "alignment"-type spells, additional damage from holy weapons, and the like.
I don't entirely disagree with Henry. I run into all kinds of problems with self-disciplined characters with a strong sense of personal honor (strong Lawful), who are nonetheless dedicated non-conformist iconoclasts (strong Chaotic). What alignment do they get? Do I split the difference and call it NG?
Yes. That's how Mordenkainen is True Neutral.
That said, Law and Chaos and Good and Evil are fundamanetal staples of a fantasy world.
So I split the difference, and use two "tiers".
Mortals get "alignment lite;" they choose an alignment that sort of fits their personality, and are expected to use it as a rough conduct guide, but it's all RP and has little mechanical effect unless they're paladins or something. Detect evil on the shopkeeper mentioned above would fail, because the shopkeeper is a mortal who does not embody anything greater than himself.
Outsiders get extreme alignments; they embody cosmic principles, and are thus susceptible to "alignment"-type spells.
So Clerics and Paladins might count as 'Outsiders', then (since their Alignment Auras make them show up on Detect spells), or do you just go by if something has an Alignment Subtype or not?
I've dumped alignment ever since I was running 2e. I hated the whole good guys where white hats and bad guys where black hats saturday morning cartoon aspect of it.
However, the D&D system has certain mechanics tied to alignment so instead of alignment as a force of nature (which makes for some overly simplistic realities) just use it as a shorthand to describe a character's basic outlook or leave it blank. In regards to mechanics, just reflavor certain spells to reflect a different paradigm. For example, protection from evil can become protection from adversary (or something more specific). Ban detect alignment altogether because if alignment isn't a tangible or even metaphysical reality it cannot be detected. If you wish, rechristen detect alignment as detect motive.
It takes a bit of work, but if the flavor is all that's changed, then it can work and simply remove anything you can't reflavor. I've done it, it works and there is no problem.
I am running into this issue with the setting I am writing up and decided to add advice for DMs/players who would rather not use alignment instead of attempting to remove alignment completely.
You need a hat. In 3.5 OGL, you get a choice of 9 hats. It's what you base your roleplaying style on. The twin struggles between order and disorder and between common weal and self interest allow for lots of conflict, which drives the plot. Other systems use positive and negative traits to get to the general point of white hat, black hat, or gray hat. It's a simple way to keep it straight.
I've always favored the freedom for all versus evil empire type of adventure, which was totally dissed by brand name game.
|
I really don't get the intense hatred of the alignment system. Alignment is a description, not a restriction. I choose an alignment based on how I expect my character to act. I don't choose character actions based on alignment. If you don't like alignment, it's relatively easy to ignore for your game. If your DM insists on using it, choose True Neutral and don't worry about it anymore. It's not worth the blood pressure spike, really.
|
Alignment makes for two-dimensional gaming. Think of all the people you know. Do any of them fit nicely into the good or evil categories? Maybe you can think of a few who aren’t quite so grey. But then think: does everyone think the same of them? Does everyone think your friend Lucy is a nice girl? Or is she just charismatic and good at leaving behind the people who think she’s evil? Maybe her younger sister hates her? And what about that guy you hate, Steve? Does everyone think he’s evil? Even his mum? What about the guy he met two days ago in the pub, who had a great night talking with him? Surely, then, alignment is more a subjective thing. Maybe ‘good’ actually means “Those people who I get along with and support” and ‘evil’ means “Those who I oppose or dislike.” Let’s get beyond the old-fashioned objectivist way of thinking, and recognise that alignment is subjective – that it’s not about who they are, so much as how you relate to them and them to you.
The problem with this argument is that in D&D/fantasy worlds “Good” and “Evil” are not subjective world views — they are very real, palpable things that manifest in a variety of ways (eg, gods, demon, devils, angels, etc that interact with the world on an ongoing basis). If we were to apply the same objective standards of good and evil, yes we could fit the people we know into categories (assuming we have a good knowledge of their psyche and underlying motivation, ethics and goals).
Life is not simple enough to fit into nine alignment categories. The alignment system creates flat characters and destroys the believability of the game.
Not really. A character’s views and actions dictate their alignment–not the other way round. Having a “good” alignment doesn’t stop a character from killing babies and keeping their severed heads in a ice box (is simply means that that’s not the behavior that the character is predisposed towards). However, if a “good” character does starts doing that, their alignment will quickly shift to “evil” to match their behavior. Alignment is not a straightjacket, nor is a a crutch for roleplaying.
It’s also just a bad mechanic. Here’s how it mainly comes into effect:
1) Detect evil. This often is a short way for players to decide “Do I attack or not?” It’s a short-cut to combat. It encourages people to view their own characters in shallow ways, and takes the depth of moral decision out of the game. Instead of the paladin asking herself whether or not she can tolerate adventuring with this somewhat morally-challenged roguish character, all she has to do is concentrate. If the player declares their rogue is actually neutral, then she’s fine. If the player declares their rogue to be evil, then the paladin instantly has to stop adventuring with them. Instead of an interesting role-playing session regarding the character’s struggle of morality, the issue is worked out by a simple, shallow question to the other character who, more-or-less arbitrarily, decides whether they’re CN or CE.
Furthermore, the following discussion has been had far too often:
--Paladin: “I detect evil. Is he evil?”
--Judge: “Er, er, let me check.” <pause as he looks through statistics and finds his alignment listed as NE> “Yes. Oh, wait.” <pause as he looks through spell effects and finds ‘undetectable alignment’ active> “I mean, er, no. No, er, you most certainly don’t detect evil.”
--Paladin: (metagaming) “I think he’s evil. I attack anyway.”
--Fellow-adventurer: “But you can’t do that, you have no evidence. That would be an evil act to provoke a pre-emptive strike against an opponent who appears unarmed and doesn’t detect as evil.”What the problem is here is metagaming. Detect Evil so often becomes the spark from which metagaming ensues. It negates good roleplaying, and takes people out of their character’s experience, returning them to the experience of the player who then metagames by reading the judges body language (or accidentally spoken language), something which the character should never know.
The problem there IS metagaming (and very poor metagaming at that), not alignment. If a paladin attacks an “evil” character simply because said character is “evil,” then the paladin is acting in a manner that is neither “good” nor “lawful” (and will quickly lose his paladin abilities).
2) Protection from Evil (and Magic Circle). This is one of the most broken spells in the game, completely negating enchantment spells cast by evil spellcasters, whilst having absolutely no effect on the evil-spellcasters-really-close-neutral-(for prestige class reasons (not storyline))-friend. What a ridiculous imbalance. Maybe “Protection from Foe” would work better, simply allowing it to be the subjective decision of the spellcaster (or maybe the recipient), rather than the arbitrariness of alignment. This would pretty much be worked out in the same way that a bard decides who its allies are for affecting them with their music, or a fighter decides who he’s flanking. It would indeed make the spell work in a sensible way, and in the way one might expect, rather than affecting some foes and not affecting others for seemingly random reasons (the alignments of characters and monsters don’t always make sense, especially given their motives).
However, it does make sense when you understand that “Good” and “Evil” is not based on the character’s cultural mores, but an objective reality.
That said, a “Protection from Foe” spell would be a great addition to the spell lists.
3) Holy Word/Blasphemy. These are broken spells anyway, often requiring special rules because of their strange mechanics (like the CR16 half-fiendish advanced remorhaz that was written in to have used its blasphemy to kill an elk earlier in the day, when if would have killed any party member of less than 26th level (i.e. all the APL12 party), had it still had it left). We’re probably better off without them, or at least modifying them heavily.
This is not a problem with alignment, however.
The other area where alignment plays a major roles is in whether clerics channel positive or negative energy. And this decision may be better suited, not to alignment, but to whether the cleric is pro-undead or anti-undead. And then forcing this decision to make evil clerics not be able to spontaneously heal is ridiculous. Evil characters want to win, and if winning requires healing (as it frequently does), then they’ll use healing. Or at least they’ll use some kind of patching-up through painkillers and drugs (or magic that emulates these) that have more or less the same effect (with possibly some side effects, like extra aggression and negative after-effects). But even evil clerics should be able to have the power to spontaneously heal their companions, in order that they may have a better chance of winning for their cause.
Once again, objective reality not subjective ethics. Positive Energy = Good. Negative Energy/Undead = Bad.
So what would I suggest instead of alignment? I’m not sure, but I know it needs changing. Maybe setting up more guidelines for characters, in terms of how they are likely to act (helping players to think through their character more, creating deeper instead of shallower characters). For example:
Are they courageous or cautious?
Are they self-sacrificing or selfish?
Do they care about the rights of others, just their own, or not really anyone’s?
Are they likely to obey the law whatever, obey the law within ‘reason’, obey the law when it suits them, break the law when it suits them, break the law for fun, or purposely break laws at every opportunity that comes their way?
Are they pro-creature (inclusive), pro-sentience (anti-slave), pro-life (anti-unnatural/undead), pro-humanoid (elitist), pro-human (species-ist), pro-regional-human (racist), pro-family (clan mentality), pro-self (selfish)?
Are they judgmental or accepting?
Are they generally friendly and hospitable, or hostile and uncaring?
Are there certain species they favour, and certain they hold prejudice against?Some of these are more roleplaying flavours for people to develop for their characters as they go. Some of these could even be included as numerical statistics (e.g. 1=very courageous, 20=very cautious, and to act as you desire when a dragon swoops at you requires you to role above your courage/caution level (maybe adding bonuses against fear or something).) Some of these may not be helpful at all. Some may be very helpful. And some of you may have better ideas for guidelines or mechanics for this.
If alignment is going to be scrapped — why create some sort of replacement? Many other roleplaying games exist without alignment or other behavior mechanics and function fine.
I just know that the alignment system, as is, is both unbelievable and mechanically bad. And I know that there’s enough creativity out there for us to come up with something better!
The alignment system is not unbelievable when you understand the reality of a heroic fantasy setting, nor is it, in itself, mechanically bad when used as intended.
Player shouldn't worry about alignment at all. They play their characters as they think it fits their personas. The gm will the NPCs have react to them according to their behavior.
And the gm will decide who's hurt by the evil clerics spell and who's not, and who may take up the holy sword and who will get burned by it.
I think alignment is a very good tool for gms to have a summary of NPCs that's as short and simple as possible and gives them only the most basic idea of what the NPC is like, and to determine who is affected by holy and unholy spells within a second, without having to carefully think about it every time the need arises.
That's alignment to me, and how I like it.
|
I haven't used alignment in years (except in Living Greyhawk, of course). Unearthed Arcana/Arcana Evolved has it right. But we are not talking about that great system.
To the original poster: just ignore alignment if you like. I do. It certainly is a strange thing to divide and categorize behavior, personality and tendencies into nine broad concepts. The game has done it for years, and it's clunky. So what? Ignore it.
It's funny how most people don't think they're particularly evil, but quite a few think they're really, really good. Alignment is relative to the observer - how many bad guys really think they're evil?
It's funny how most people don't think they're particularly evil, but quite a few think they're really, really good. Alignment is relative to the observer - how many bad guys really think they're evil?
That's true here and now, but probably not in a fantasy world where worshiping Evil gives you all kinds of goodies, nice powers, undead servants and fiendish enforcers. You also have to consider that RW good is pretty relative and individual. Most ancient systems had a stronger emphasis on the Law vs. Chaos issue and they systematically equated Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, as Evil was anything which violated the natural order of things (disease, invasion, ruin). Most of it was attributed to "bad" Outsiders. Enforcers of Order (king, civil servants and their supernatural correlates) were the "good" guys, as they preserved creation.
Good-Evil as distinct concepts from Order-Chaos had a burgeoning in the Hellenistic time, connected to philosophies which underscored the role of individual ethics and freedom, both in the field of philosophy and in that of religion (Judaism and mystery cults, including Christianity later on).RW socio-politics is pretty much based in the assumption that evil is "absence of good", as per the Platonic view. In a fantasy setting Evil tends to be pretty tangible.
FRPG alignment mixes up the two axes. That constitutes a sort of anachronism, as it present characters in a "world with demons and angels", a la Ancient Law-Chaos paradigm, endowed with a sense of good and evil which resembles our (basically) Judaeo-Christian system. That is useful, as it gives characters a more "close to us" dimension.
Of course, some of the evil guys may also justify their actions as a sort of "common good", a la RW dictators. But objective evil in the form of outsider entities makes a difference.
I actually see that most complaints on the duo-dimensionality of alignment are in fact complaints about gaming styles in which alignments are taken at face value. Alignments allow for "shades of gray", which come about in the form of good role-playing and interesting scenarios: Can Evil characters love people? Sure they can, when their love conflicts their interests there may be a crisis. Will a Good party kill a baby who is going to grow up to become an apocalyptic demon lord (and they know about it through safe and sound prophecies)?
Those situations work within the alignment framework, but are rich opportunities of role-playing and anything but duo-dimensional.
So Clerics and Paladins might count as 'Outsiders', then (since their Alignment Auras make them show up on Detect spells), or do you just go by if something has an Alignment Subtype or not?
The former, more or less. Paladins (and blackguards) especially, and many clerics, have intentionally become agents of those cosmic principles. They detect as good/evil (though not as strongly as the true Outsiders -- I shift them down the chart a notch), and they are susceptible to holy/unholy weapons and spell effects (but unholy weapons deal +1d6 vs. paladins, rather than +2d6, until they're high level). In theory, a cultist of Dagon or someone, even if he was of the Commoner class, would still pick up some vulnerability to holy effects by virtue of the taint on his soul.
I wouldn't necessarily advocate this system for core rules, but it worked quite nicely for our homebrew campaign.
No.
1. If you get rid of alignments, you'll have rewrite the system completely -- MORE than 4th edition did.
Yeah, I can definately see a probelm with removing it completely.
2. Alignments are useful in a dramatic and aesthetic sense. Endless shades of grey mush beating on each other for grubby, mercenary reasons just don't have the same resonance as a good old-fashioned good vs. evil struggle.
I have to differ on that point. IME, what makes folks interesting is their complex motivations. As a fan of sword and sorcery fiction, I enjoy that characters in such stories are motivated by things mere mortals can understand on a viceral level. Even though the heroes may seem mercenary, they often ultimately side with good because only the insane would actively through their support the powers of hell for example. Conan may be a hard-arse but ultimately he is one of the good guys even if he isn't a Sir Lancelot type character.
3. Some of us, including myself, think that there IS objective good and evil in the real world. I tend to think that curing someone's cancer and giving them a strawberry milkshake to boot would fall on the 'good' side, while kidnapping, torturing, and killing them would probably fall on the 'evil' side. So good and evil are as much a part of our world-view as say, light, air, or the ability to speak. Take 'em out of the game, and something BIG will be missing. Or rather, they'll be there, but everyone will be pretending they aren't.
I think there is an objective evil and an objective good as well. I tend to see evil as an absence of good rooted in ignorance. Even though there are nut jobs that think they are evil, the vast majority of folks who commit 'evil' acts don't believe themselves to be evil.
The suicide bomber who murders 300 in a crowded market truly believes he is doing good in the name of his god. IMO most evil is rooted in deluded thinking and even mental abberation and I certainly think that fantasy role-playing can handle this type of subjectivity. Maybe on a mortal level good and evil are subjective because mortals cannot know for sure but maybe on an immortal level alignment can come into play because they are closer to ultimate truth than mere mortals.
IMO one of the biggest problems of alignment is when a game master, like myself, is attempting to create a world that bears some similarities to our world of the past. Often, alignment is rooted in modern conceptions of good and evil making it an anachronism in the ancient/medieval world.
Rampant slavery, misogyny, militarism, wars in the name of God(s), etc were the rule of the day throughout history. The entire cultures of the ancient greeks, egyptians, romans, huns, mongolians, christian crusaders, etc. would in many cases be evil in alignment because they supported actions and social realities that are antithetical to our modern sensibilities. However, in their time, these peoples didn't understand morality as we do now and IMO cannot be fairly judged as being evil because they were merely creatures of their time.
IME alignment can create some strange, anachronistic sanitized settings that lack depth and complexity.
It's funny how most people don't think they're particularly evil, but quite a few think they're really, really good. Alignment is relative to the observer - how many bad guys really think they're evil?
How many Evil people think they're 'Evil'? Lots of them. How many of them think that that is a 'bad' thing? Very few.
From my attempt at rewriting the alignments
Frequently, Evil characters do not think of themselves as ‘bad’: rationalizing their actions as merely as doing what is necessary to succeed. For example, the taskmaster of a workhouse exploits the orphans under his care, underfeeding and overworking them. He might justify it as being better than the children being out on the street. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to explain why it’s Good, it’s Evil.
<snip>
Good characters view Evil characters as cruel, heartless, and selfish. Evil characters view Good characters as foolish, weak, and naïve.
I'm sure that in Taldane (Common) 'Good' (of Good/Evil) is a different word than 'good' (of good/bad).
Alignment makes for two-dimensional gaming.
That's kinda the point. The game is about heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy traditionally emphasizes black-and-white morality. Alignment helps facilitate that. People tend to misinterpret it as constraining, but unless you're a Paladin, or if your DM punishes you for changing alignment (which he really really shouldn't), it's really just a pithy description to help give you guidelines for play.
So, keep it. Plus it would destroy backwards compatibility to remove it.
The alignment system is great; but it's not a rigid or static system. It's a guideline to give people an idea of how a character (PC, NPC, or creature) typically behaves. Alignments also help people get in character; as someone noted above people would simply play themselves instead of their character or just do whatever they wanted.
Sure people don't fit perfectly into these little molds but it doesn't say in the rule book that they have to act like this all of the time (PHB pg.103). Good people have moments of sin. Evil people have swayed the other way. Lawful people have broken laws. Chaotic people can focus when necessary. However these are atypical to how they would usually behave.
Alignments are not static either; they can change by magic or the fact that people have free will. My players are very free and open to do as they wish and I've never said "your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment." However there are consequences for actions and alignments can change; either up or down. Not all consequences are bad!
Alignment should stay. I have played the Wheel of time RPG, where there are no alignments. The players think they can kill, maim and torture everyone whom they suspect is a villain, all "for the greater good of saving the world". In D&D I would have changed their alignment long ago to at least neutral. But since there is no alignment in WoT, I cannot do it there. Since they are hiding their crimes well, no NPC can punish them. I do not like this group's behavior. They are simply not heroes, but they think they are. Alignment would be a way for me to make that clear to them. Of course players can play their characters any way they want, but they should know what they are and have no illusions about it. (The characters can have the illusions, not the players.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I'm glad that alignment isn't going anywhere but I am disappointed by the number of people who think of the alignment rules as a straight jacket.
I usually play firmly on the Good end of the Spectrum (frequently as a Paladin) however when a friend launched a new campaign recently I opted to play an Evil Warmage.
Toman's Lawful Evil but he is not easily categorized. He worships Boccob, Heironieous and Hextor. He is adventuring in a typically heroic party. He would lay his life down for his companions if he must although he'd rather it didn't come to that so Toman will do the unthinkable to be certain he and his friends survive. I've had him poison an ally's mother for his own benefit and I've had him do acts of charity.
Toman doesn't see the world in nine alignments and if he did he certainly wouldn't place himself in evil. He might concede a neutral alignment pointing out how his loyalty to his friends, and his charitable acts counter his few evil actions. As a player I get to work in the framework of the nine alignments and I have used Lawful Evil as a starting place for Toman's personality. He's not evil because of what he has done (he's done precious little that is truly evil) but because of what he is capable of doing without a second thought or an ounce of remorse.
I don't feel that Alignment forced me into a specific mold with Toman but rather helped me define what horrors Toman would be capable of.
I'm glad that alignment isn't going anywhere but I am disappointed by the number of people who think of the alignment rules as a straight jacket.
I totally agree.
For the DM, alignment gives me a general idea of how to play my NPCs. For players, it's more of a generalized code of conduct thet they CHOOSE when creating their characters. I'm usually not to crucial on how the players play their characters (with regards to alignment) but have, on occasion, told a player that a particular action would not be something their character would be inclined to do (like a good PC using torture to get info), and have deducted XP for it. If the problem had persisted over several games, I would have told the player to change the alignment of his character (with all the consequences that came with it).
Ultradan
Alignement can stay in game, but I would like to see its impact on the game reduce !!!
Spells like Detect Alignement, Protection from Alignement, Holy word and so on have too much impact on the game. You are always fighting evil guys ...
I would like to see these spells use the alignement subtype instead of the alignement.
If Detect Evil only allows you to detect demons, devils, etc ..., it is still useful but it no longer is a game breaker.
I think it can go, generally. I didn't think so a year ago, but I've been playing in a Savage Tide game where the DM eliminated alignment. A paladin's detection triggers when someone is actively attempting harm to the paladin or his allies. Protection from X spells become a bit more powerful, as they generally always apply. Chaos hammer and equivalent spells are "full save for half" for people you consider enemies and "half save for a quarter" for people you consider allies.
This has had a few fun results: I'm playing a noble savage darfellan, a paladin/barbarian that the rules formerly did not allow. Our well-meaning rogue is going to take a few levels in assassin.
So, the only "ditch alignment in D&D" experiment I've taken part in has worked very well, I think.
Caveat: I did have one DM who ran two campaigns in which there was alignment, but we didn't know what our alignment was. We played our characters however we wanted, and he would keep track of our current alignment on his side of the screen. We only knew what alignment we thought we were striving towards. Sure, we knew when our paladin slipped away from his code, as he lost his paladin powers for a time. But we didn't know how badly our wizard had slipped until an unholy blight did him no damage...
Sigh... Even many of the people who like alignment and want to give points why it is a good thing, very often say how they warn players that they are not playing to their alignment...
I always encourage players to play the character as they want. Unless you are a paladin (and there are no paladins in my campaign world), it has really no impact if the gm decides to no longer have you filled under the alignment you put on your character sheet.
As the gm, you're the cosmic powers and you can decide when you think a character should burn his hand on the relic because the dark taint in his heart.
So when a player has CG on his character sheet but I think he's clearly not good, than I put him as CN in my book. You may tell the player or not, depending on if you think he'll just accept it or would want to argue.
If you don't like alignment, don't use it.
My crew played without it happily for years (or rather, only applying to outsiders and the like who are supposed to be black & white morally. Then Planescape made us love alignment.
To be honest, it's the only dedicated "roleplaying" rule in the game, and it is mostly a guideline. It's also very easy to ignore. Remove it from the final version of Pathfinder? Absolutely not.
|
IMHO, alignment is a bit of a pain, but I have yet to see a replacement that was worth it. Alliances comes very close though.
I would buy a product that replaced alliances with alignment that in turn reworked OGL spells to that system. As Erik said, it would be a big pain to do and as far as I am interested, I would like it to be a stand alone product rather than integrated into Pathfinder. (I hate throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
Personally I think that you can rework some spells without too much work (relatively). Anything with evil as a type should detect evil...ect.
But I also know tha alignment is like flavoring. Right now it is what makes Pathfinder taste so good to me now. It has that taste that I used to get from classic game worlds and that really has me hooked at the momment as well as my players.
I would suggest to apply the universal rule of House Rules.
My players don't love the alignment and its 100% of a GM rule more than a character trait. I remember playing werewolf and vampaire we there are no alignments and we played exacty the same.
In our group alignment its pretty much a "nametag" to affect aligned items and effetcs. When it come to roleplaying morals are pretty hard to "tag" everyone can argue "its my point of view". Specially in a world were "killing" its not so penalized. A Paladin who wants to kill every Evil beign is pretty much a Barbarian with an "excuse".
I only use alignment for the "aligned" effects and for awarding experience. If you have a Good guy you get extra xp for beign specially charitable (or something alike). If you are an Evil guy you get extra xp for beign an ass (or any way your Evil alignment defines you). and if you are a Neural guy you don't get extra XP, you just further your own goals, you selfish basts%&/%!.
So, kuddos for keeping Alignment as it is!
Lucy is most definitely Neutral Evil. For anyone that disagrees, just join her for a game of "kick the football."
(P.S. She lies about being a certified psychiatrist.)
Alignments are unhelpful and cause conflict. They're simplistic, and they're too deeply tied into the mechanics in bad, sometimes ridiculous ways.
So far, we're against removing them because... they're traditional?
C'mon, guys. What do alignments add to the game?
- It's not convenient description. Lawful Good might mean that you're a great person, or that you're an overzealous "detect them all and smite the evil ones" bully. True Neutral could mean that you don't care about that stuff at all, or that you see Good and Evil as cosmic forces that need to be balanced (which is ridiculous). Chaotic Good could mean you're a Robin Hood, or it could mean you're a politican working to change the laws for the benefit of all from the inside. "My character's alignment is _______" doesn't actually tell me anything about your character. It is completely unhelpful except in the sense that Good-aligned characters probably haven't murdered any demihumans lately. "It's a guide, not a straightjacket"... but on that note, it doesn't actually tell you anything important/useful.
- It's not good as a mechanic. Alignment detection spells trivialize some ethical issues (is he evil?) while creating others based on nothing but their mechanics. Why do we need so many spells tied to alignment, anyway? And doesn't the presence of spells called "Detect Evil", "Detect Good", etc mean that people are in-character aware that there are Nine Official Alignments?
- It's part descriptive, and part proscriptive ("a Good character wouldn't do that"). It's part about intentions, and part about actions. And it doesn't explain any of that. This leads to arguments.
Alignment should stay. I have played the Wheel of time RPG, where there are no alignments. The players think they can kill, maim and torture everyone whom they suspect is a villain, all "for the greater good of saving the world". In D&D I would have changed their alignment long ago to at least neutral. But since there is no alignment in WoT, I cannot do it there. Since they are hiding their crimes well, no NPC can punish them. I do not like this group's behavior. They are simply not heroes, but they think they are. Alignment would be a way for me to make that clear to them. Of course players can play their characters any way they want, but they should know what they are and have no illusions about it. (The characters can have the illusions, not the players.)
"Make that clear to them"? Why do you need to do that anyway? And... can't you just TELL them?
All having alignments for you to change would do would cause arguments about how what they're doing actually is good/not good/etc, with additional arguments over what each alignment means.
|
This appears to be an unwinnable argument.
Unless those opposed to alignment can prove that the system actually detracts from the fun of the game, and is impossible to house-rule away, or the majority of the community stands up against alignments, I don't think they are going anywhere.
EDIT: It is always easier to take something out than to add it in later.
Keep it simple, House-rule it out! Its quite easy!. A few less class and item requirements, a few spells out, a lot less frustrated GMs. Right?
I think the more important and complicated the Alignment rules are, more dissatisfied people there will be.
If you like it, keep it. If you don't.... don't! Or option C: Fix it to your HR style.