I actually liked the d20 modern allegiance system. Pick 3 things that truly matter to you. They can be truth justice and the american way, or me myself and I, but in general it allows for character development in a new way. For instance, you could be loyal to your family, that is a character driving force. You do all in your power to uphold the honer and integrity of your family name. That will lead you to likely have a lawful alignment. Your brother accidently kills someone and you help him hide from the law. Now whats your alignment? With alignments its hard to represent that kind of loyalty.
As the game progresses you could gain more allegiances and rank them accordingly. Whats more important to you, money, the greater good, or your wife. You choose, and you can act in that way.
I would like to see alternative rules as well, and am in favor of more relativism in my games. I think it is worth getting people's heads together to come up with guidelines, because Paizo is unlikely to help anytime soon: dump alignment thread.
My suggestion there was very similar to what Lilthsthrall is suggesting, in essence a simple substitution of "foe" or "ally" for the opposed alignments but using essentially the same mechanics in place for alignment-based spells, items, classes, etc. It needs tweaking though.
any campaign taking this one would need quite a bit of fleshing out to work out the politics of the world as well as the mechanics...
|
The current alignment system is fine for high melodrama, but many GMs and players don't want to play a game of high melodrama. It seems (though I can't say for sure) that the majority of GMs and players don't want to play a game of high melodrama. So, another system is needed.Where are the problems with the alignment system currently?
I am aware of and participating in LG and CN threads currently, those seem to be the favs....
How about an alignment system like life where 99% of people do whatever they can get away with and take the easiest road available.
The alignment wars have been going on since 1e at least and honestly it's just rehashing the same ground over and over again. People have firm ideas about what the alignment system means and tend to not be willing to look at the issue from other people's perspective.
Personally I'm not opposed to maintaining D&D with an objective moral system because I can always pull out another game if I want less black & white morality. I tend to think that D&D simulates D&D well and one of the things that D&D tends towards is the black and white moral landscape.
However if you are tied to revising the system I think the core issues are revising abilities and effects. Instead of being LG with detect evil, the Paladin needs to have some other ability (perhaps Detect Taint/Corruption) and various spell need to be revised heavily or jettisoned from the game. Perhaps Protection from Evil becomes a generic Guardian spell that simply provides shielding from extraplanar creatures and a bonus to saves vs enchantments. Basically it needs to be weaker in order to account for it's universal applicability.
The PCs might fight Goblinoids not because they are evil per say but because they are traditionally enemies and goblinoids engage in a variety of unsavory behaviors.
Morality then becomes more of a personal thing informed by culture and religion as well as personal experiences. While stealing might still be considered wrong in the eyes of the law or by most inhabitants of the world, stealing ala Robin Hood is an exception, etc.
The current alignment system is fine for high melodrama, but many GMs and players don't want to play a game of high melodrama. It seems (though I can't say for sure) that the majority of GMs and players don't want to play a game of high melodrama. So, another system is needed.
Rubbish.
The current alignment system is fine for whatever kind of fantasy campaign you want to run, or play in. It's actually an extremely flexible system, and, like Skills of the social kind, is all about how it's used.
You can for the most part ignore it, and the game continues to work perfectly. You can focus on it heavily if you prefer. Or, indeed, go for somewhere in between, as most of us probably do.
Even if it's taken to be somewhat of a straitjacket (which, IMO, it shouldn't be) it's important to remember that most people are Neutral. So you can always choose that, have plenty of freedom in any "direction", and ignore the majority of mechanics that might otherwise complicate your day.
Oh, and I have run many, many sessions over the years, using Alignments, that have been absolutely nothing like "high melodrama", just so you know. Therefore, even if what you said applies to everyone else in the world (yeah, right) it doesn't apply to everyone. And therefore, regardless, it's not true, as a blanket statement.
|
I love Alignment discussions. It's probably my single favorite aspect of gaming. LG vs LE, CG working with LG, whatever in the world is CN, etc. I'm a nut for the Blood War and a champion of D&D's "interpretation" of Lawful.
But lots of gamers aren't.
That's why we should keep the system the way it is. 9 alignments, each with a paragraph or two of generic, analytically shallow descriptions that get adjusted every edition of the game and sub-edition of the game. Not to mention countless Threads on messageboards.
Players like me can enjoy it and make it part of our villains' design (or PCs) while others can simultaneously ignore that aspect of a campaign and not miss out on anything.
Ultimately, though,
|
|
"Calvin" makes a good point.
When PCs in my game detect evil on NPCs I treat it as detect evil "aura". That is, the way clerics and paladins and outsiders have an "aura" of their alignment... A generic, NE goblin wouldn't detect as "evil" (so, if he surrenders the PCs can't murder him). A NE goblin cleric would radiate as "evil" so the PCs know if he "surrenders" he's probably not sincere -- he's not "redeemable."
This comes up alot in games. The PCs defeat the BBEG and many of the mooks and slaves (most "evil" humanoids) are left standing around. If they surrender they can be "rehabilitated."
|
|
What is with all the threads asking about if a character is evil? The opinion of people on the internet don't matter. What matters is if the people in your group can come to a consensus on what good and evil mean in your game. Getting support from the interwebs means nothing.
Just being lazy copypasta.
Also going to whore my alignment houserules here.
All creatures that do not have an alignment subtype or aura are treated as Neutral for all game mechanics.
Bam, alignment is no longer has a huge interaction with the mechanics.
In my opinion the biggest problem with the alignment system is that it really doesn’t take into account of the gray areas of a persons morality .
I think that the way the alignment system should work is add a score system to it, every time you do a truly honest good act you gain a good point and every time you do a truly evil act you get a point and so long as you have more good points then evil you are a good character or something in that direction that way you could be a paladin and choose to do a bad act once in a while when its necessary .
Following something like this would allow alignment restrictions as they are but give a player some sense of control over if his alignment would ever change and it would shoe him why it changed.
The big thing it would get rid of is the fear of a DM suddenly changing your alignment with no warning.
This would be similar to the dark side points you get in the star wars rpg but you could also gain good points.
|
|
Yeah, I don't like the idea of "points" for a PC's alignment -- but I think it would be cool for NPCs.
The DM can arbitrarily pick the number (say, 0-9 so it corresponds to spell levels) and when the PC Paladin casts Detect Evil then on the 1st rd he gets presence or absence of, 2nd rd he gets "weak", "moderate" or "strong", 3rd rd he gets the number.
No offense, but, really, the last thing I want on my character sheet is yet something else to keep track of.
It's great that the game was originally played by a bunch of engineers and computer programmers, but more numbers, more charts, and more scores are the kinds of things I'd like to see have a knife plunged into them.
No offense taken, i do understand your point the good news is that the chances of them changing the alignment system is pretty much nonexistent,
i just like the idea of having more control over something that can effect my character so much, it doesn't happen often but i hate the idea of a dm changing an element of my character.
All creatures that do not have an alignment subtype or aura are treated as Neutral for all game mechanics.
Bam, alignment is no longer has a huge interaction with the mechanics.
How do the paladins in your game feel about that (if there are any)? Just curious.
|
|
How do the paladins in your game feel about that (if there are any)? Just curious.
Sadly I haven't had any paladins to test it out with. So I haven't had the chance to see how it works with them and make a decision on if it just needs to be changed from Smite Evil to Smite. Of course, the fact that you usually have evil clerics and outsiders and undead here and there in adventures can help mitigate that.
Sadly I haven't had any paladins to test it out with. So I haven't had the chance to see how it works with them and make a decision on if it just needs to be changed from Smite Evil to Smite. Of course, the fact that you usually have evil clerics and outsiders and undead here and there in adventures can help mitigate that.
Gotcha. Thanks!
All creatures that do not have an alignment subtype or aura are treated as Neutral for all game mechanics.
Bam, alignment is no longer has a huge interaction with the mechanics.
This doesn't help with spells like Holy Smite, in fact it makes matters worse. It's possible to be part of an all good aligned group. There's almost no chance of being part of a group where everyone has a good aura. Every alignment based attack and defense spell takes an even bigger hit to its usefulness.
|
|
This doesn't help with spells like Holy Smite, in fact it makes matters worse. It's possible to be part of an all good aligned group. There's almost no chance of being part of a group where everyone has a good aura. Every alignment based attack and defense spell takes an even bigger hit to its usefulness.
And I'm okay with that. Spellcasters have plenty of non-aligned options to cast. The aligned ones can be loaded up when you know you're going after a cult of evil clerics or demons.
Edit: My fighter buddy having to make a Will for 1/4 damage is an acceptable consequence of getting to force the demon to Will for 1/2 or blindness.
|
|
I don't share your cynicism.You know that saying that genius and madness are often indistinguishable? Well cynicism and realism are often swapped by people who don't want to face reality.Have you ever noticed that nearly everyone will describe themself as "good" and, yet, so many people believe that the world is full of bad people?
So, do you count yourself as part of the 1% or part of the 99%?
I'm in the 99%...i do what i need to do for me and mine.
|
|
The 99% are "people [who] do whatever they can get away with and take the easiest road available", not people who do what they "need to do for [them] and [theirs]".I'm in the 99%...i do what i need to do for me and mine.I don't share your cynicism.You know that saying that genius and madness are often indistinguishable? Well cynicism and realism are often swapped by people who don't want to face reality.Have you ever noticed that nearly everyone will describe themself as "good" and, yet, so many people believe that the world is full of bad people?
So, do you count yourself as part of the 1% or part of the 99%?
I do what I can get away with. I disagree with alot of the laws on the books nowadays, and I am going to do the easiest work possible for the most amount of gain. Is that better?
|
|
So, you're in an entirely different 99% which has nothing to do with the 99% of people who I was talking about. You could, just as well, mention the other majorities you are part of - perhaps being right handed or white - they'd be just as relevant.
Not trying to be snarky but one of us is being dense...either you're intentionally playing grammar twister and that's why i'm confused or i have no clue what you're asking.
|
|
The threads are all really about paladins!
That is the conspiracy theory
The long and short
LG is not the same as lawful stupid
Some DMs are for Lawful stupid and PCs want to play characters more like judge dredd.....
So we have 4 threads + on this topic starting (I think) in a thread called limitaions on a Paladins code...
LG VS LS
I can't wait to play my judge-dredd-adin complete with "necklace of resurrection" (fingers/ears of executed ne'er do wells that i will get resurrected to face justice)
I do think that I will give X the award for most extreme PC version of a LG Paladin anywhere!
I ran a 2e game in the 90s, where we had one paladin. I ran Against the Cult of the Reptile God. There is a town in the beginning part of the adventure which has some charmed townsfolk who work for the cult. Because 2e was always kind of wishy-washy on what a paladin's Detect Evil did, I made a hasty decision. She did detect evil on a couple townspeople, who had invited them in for tea. I decided the cultists' charm would show up as a slightly evil haze around the heads of the charm victims.
So the paladin removed the haze. And the heads.
I decided I would have to be more careful about how I described things in the future.
The issue is not the alignment system, but that alignment is directly linked to game mechanics.
If it simply existed to give players and DMs an idea of the moral and ethical behavior of their characters and monsters, then no one would really care. It could be easily adjusted by personal taste, ie. no one would care if their DM thought you were acting LN instead of LG because it didn't change the game mechanics at all. All it would change is the roleplaying aspects.
It is the fact it can greatly change the effectiveness of certain classes, abilities, and spells that matter.
I personally would prefer alignment removed from this aspect of the game.
+1, I think this is really what I am after. I can recognize the utility of the alignment system as a rough and ready guide to roleplay, etc.
the big problem is offering incentives for being "good" (paladin powers, BoED, etc), so that (some) players are lured in by the granted powers, which are supposed to be balanced by the "penalty" of roleplaying the alignment. The GM then has to take on the role of policing alignment or even trying to sabotage the player to restore game balance.I just don't think that we need that kind of incentive for people to roleplay heroes. they are just more likely to play a hero that sits more in line with their own moral compass.