I still use alignments in my games, but I always make clear my unusual interpretation of them:
A character's alignment is a wholly external thing. It has nothing to with what their personality is, and does not constrain or influence their actions. It simply represents how the rules of the universe respond to what they have already done.
|
I'm curious though...I have problems with people taking CN to mean 'do what I want without consequence',The key here is to explain the alignment of an action is not subjective. It is objective. If it is evil for the LG guy to do then it is evil for anyone to do. I know that is not what you were getting at, but that is how I had to explain to a new player.
Good point, and if I keep alignment in my game, I'll make sure to relay that. Thanks.
|
|
I discussed this subject here in this thread about paladins. It's a bit long so follow the link if you're interested.
I've been DMing AD&D/3.e/Pathfinder without alignment for more than two decades now and I have never missed it and never had a problem or conflict with clasa abilities, spells, or any other alignment-related game concept.
+1
I read through your post, and I think that's how I'm going to adopt my future games. It appears like it would take a lot of "making the NPCs come to life" instead of just waving them away due to their believed non-importance, or in some cases, short expected life spans.
With those issues I had in the one game, I kind of went about making the party gain a reputation around said parts of the land for being murderous folk without compassion under the guise of hero/protector/defender, though the game didn't go long enough for me to see if it would have the desired effect of teaching them their actions had consequences, no matter what their alignments read.
|
I also once started a thread on this topic: Alignmentlessness
Since then, I can tell you what I did. I ruled that alignment was something that was "in the blood" and delegated it as I saw fit to different creature types. It was a list that didn't take long to get down on paper and didn't ruin most alignment mechanics, such as Protection from Alignment spells. Humanoids "defaulted" to neutrality unless possessing a subtype.
As far as roleplaying concerns go, my players now make character decisions based on their Personality Archetype (and the associated traits) from the PHB2 and, more recently, Character Traits from the APG. My players also typically write 1-2 page character histories (optionally) and we sometimes do this thing called "talking" about their character's motives and intent -- which does wonders for the game.
My players are also now quite used to being asked "Why that?" during breaks and their answers are considered more and explained better. Their character's actions are based on a culmination of factors such as race, class, personality, character traits, plot circumstances, history, etc. instead of inarticulate alignment-related babble. ("I'm being lawful, in that I'm obeying a personal code requiring that I act chaotic.")
There are still some small inconsistencies that pop up, such as in the case of items that require an alignment, but are typically possessed by humanoids. I've ruled, for example, that an Angelhelm (MIC) requires an aura of good (class feature) to function appropriately, may temporarily bestow good alignment on a neutral wearer (in which case, the wearer could benefit from the item), and always temporarily bestows a negative level on an evil wearer. This is a typical small adjustment to the system I described above, which otherwise integrates well.
If you're not a fan of making on-the-spot rulings like the one above you may want to consider deeper research on alignment before implementing anything. It almost goes without saying that implementing half-finished house rules (of any kind) can be the beginning of the end of an otherwise great campaign.
|
I also once started a thread on this topic: Alignmentlessness
Since then, I can tell you what I did. I ruled that alignment was something that was "in the blood" and delegated it as I saw fit to different creature types. It was a list that didn't take long to get down on paper and didn't ruin most alignment mechanics, such as Protection from Alignment spells. Humanoids "defaulted" to neutrality unless possessing a subtype.
As far as roleplaying concerns go, my players now make character decisions based on their Personality Archetype (and the associated traits) from the PHB2 and, more recently, Character Traits from the APG. My players also typically write 1-2 page character histories (optionally) and we sometimes do this thing called "talking" about their character's motives and intent -- which does wonders for the game.
My players are also now quite used to being asked "Why that?" during breaks and their answers are considered more and explained better. Their character's actions are based on a culmination of factors such as race, class, personality, character traits, plot circumstances, history, etc. instead of inarticulate alignment-related babble. ("I'm being lawful, in that I'm obeying a personal code requiring that I act chaotic.")
There are still some small inconsistencies that pop up, such as in the case of items that require an alignment, but are typically possessed by humanoids. I've ruled, for example, that an Angelhelm (MIC) requires an aura of good (class feature) to function appropriately, may temporarily bestow good alignment on a neutral wearer (in which case, the wearer could benefit from the item), and always temporarily bestows a negative level on an evil wearer. This is a typical small adjustment to the system I described above, which otherwise integrates well.
If you're not a fan of making on-the-spot rulings like the one above you...
This... +1 and so much more
I only just started playing pathfinder and haven't played 3.0/3.5, so it's been a while since I played with aligments. In the space between 2nd Edition and Pathfinder I've mostly run games in my own world and game system, where alignment weren't a factor.
During this time I've played a lot with kids in the ages 11 to 18, and I've of course had to have discussions about different forms of behaviour, when playing a game where stealing, killing, looting and worse takes place. But these has usually been fruitful discussions broaching broader subjects that often resonated well with reality and their own lives - so I've seen this as a positive thing. Alignment, in my eyes, too easily becomes a crutch (as others have mentioned) or worse - an excuse - for doing something without thinking about the consequences; "Well, I had to kill all the peasants - I'm evil!"
...that said, I'm looking forward to playing more PF (with mature players) with the whole alignment-shebang and all the silliness that can arise from good old classical high fantasy with good and evil and everything! :D
YES ! YES ! <Dance all over the place> THANK YOU !!!
Oups, sorry for the shouting but this chart was exactly what I needed for my idea of alignement ;)
So what I think of is a sort of scale of alignement with a "grey" area in it. This grey area mean you are not or less affected by alignement based spell or abilities.
Well for the purpose of my demonstration I'm going to refer to Wicked K Games chart, so if you have'nt seen it just take a look ;)
For now on the chart there a "grey" area from 0 to +/- 25. I extend this area from 0 to +/- 30.
Everyone in this grey area will not/less be affected by alignement based spells or abilities, be it NPC or PC.
PC will begin at +/-30 just at the begining of this grey area but still within, except for the more "dedicated" character such as Paladin or Cleric (or even every PC who think he is more dedicated to an alignement than the average, ie background stuff) will begin at +/-40 meaning they will be affected by alignement based stuff.
For example, I will not let a PC or NPC in a grey area be affected by a detect evil spell or ability.Thus most NPC in town will be "neutral" and so will be the brigand waiting on the road, and exit your Paladin smiting every "evil" people he encounter in the wild on sight... ;p
I'm thinking of dividing smiting damage too... Will see...
Loengrin - I'm gonna respond in the other thread so that the current one can continue it's course, but I have something neat in response to this. ;)
|
When someone wants to know how an aligned character acts in my game, (such as the CG Azata character I have currently) I tell them like this, based off of my Intro to Philosophy class.
Good: Strives to help others.
Evil: Strives to harm others.
Lawful: Cares about the means he uses.
Chaotic: Cares about the ends he acheives.
These aren't unbreakable. Common sense plays its part. So no Stupid alignments allowed.
|
|
Good: Strives to help others.
Evil: Strives to harm others.
Lawful: Cares about the means he uses.
Chaotic: Cares about the ends he acheives.These aren't unbreakable. Common sense plays its part. So no Stupid alignments allowed.
I like these. I think I'll share them with the people is my group as well.
|
|
It's the simplest measure of a character I can think of, and prevents things like "I'm a Lawful character who follows the law of 'Be Chaotic'." It also matches my favorite alignment explanation ever. :)
|
|
It's the simplest measure of a character I can think of, and prevents things like "I'm a Lawful character who follows the law of 'Be Chaotic'." It also matches my favorite alignment explanation ever. :)
HA HA HA! Love the pic.
|
|
When someone wants to know how an aligned character acts in my game, (such as the CG Azata character I have currently) I tell them like this, based off of my Intro to Philosophy class.
Good: Strives to help others.
Evil: Strives to harm others.
Lawful: Cares about the means he uses.
Chaotic: Cares about the ends he acheives.These aren't unbreakable. Common sense plays its part. So no Stupid alignments allowed.
I too have taken Intro to Philosophy, but I had a teacher that answered my questions with more questions. Clearly he was your definition of Chaotic.
I'd agree that those are good definitions (though definitely not unbreakable). I'm assuming that by "no stupid alignments allowed", what you mean is "no blind adherence to any alignment axis" -- also good, if your players understand.
So what is your definition of neutral?
|
|
]
I too have taken Intro to Philosophy, but I had a teacher that answered my questions with more questions. Clearly he was your definition of Chaotic.
I'd agree that those are good definitions (though definitely not unbreakable). I'm assuming that by "no stupid alignments allowed", what you mean is "no blind adherence to any alignment axis" -- also good, if your players understand.
So what is your definition of neutral?
I blame myself for not knowing what questions to ask. :)
That was a capital Stupid, as in Lawful Stupid and Stupid Evil. No 'I am Chaotic, therefore insane' characters. Nor does your chosen alignment excuse purposefully disruptive actions.
Neutral is your average person, not strongly concerned with the extreme viewpoints, only about themselves and their loved ones. No 'maintaining the balance by doing evil for every good'.
|
|
]
I too have taken Intro to Philosophy, but I had a teacher that answered my questions with more questions. Clearly he was your definition of Chaotic.
I'd agree that those are good definitions (though definitely not unbreakable). I'm assuming that by "no stupid alignments allowed", what you mean is "no blind adherence to any alignment axis" -- also good, if your players understand.
So what is your definition of neutral?
I blame myself for not knowing what questions to ask. :)
That was a capital Stupid, as in Lawful Stupid and Stupid Evil. No 'I am Chaotic, therefore insane' characters. Nor does your chosen alignment excuse purposefully disruptive actions.
Neutral is your average person, not strongly concerned with the extreme viewpoints, only about themselves and their loved ones. No 'maintaining the balance by doing evil for every good'.
By taking your example, a Neutral Good character cares only for good, the balance between how and why doesnt matter to him, he only cares for doing what's right.
|
|
By taking your example, a Neutral Good character cares only for good, the balance between how and why doesnt matter to him, he only cares for doing what's right.
Pretty much. I consider the cardinal alignments to be extremes. A Neutral Good character will lie to a murderer about where his targets are hiding, but will tell the police the truth about his friend's drug habit, because in both cases he is helping someone. He doesn't ascribe to either Lawful or Chaotic over the other.
Disclaimer: I don't mean to start an argument about which does more harm, turning the friend in or trying to get him to clean up. Just an example.
Good: Strives to help others.
Evil: Strives to harm others.
Lawful: Cares about the means he uses.
Chaotic: Cares about the ends he acheives.
Hey, TOZ. I love this! Very simple.
Would you feel that it is also accurate if Evil instead says, "Strives to help themselves?"
Also, I just saw your FB link and sent you a friend request. We can't be real friends until you accept. FYI.
Anyway, in regards to the original question, as a player, the alignment section on a character sheet is the very last field I fill out, and I usually don't fill it out until the GM or a nosy player wants to know what my alignment is, often a few sessions into the game. I do this because when I create a character concept, part of the fun for me is discovering how the character will react to the different situations he encounters. I like to consider what the character will do not because of a generalized philosophy, but because of his personality and the circumstances he's in.
I'm one of those people who does feel like alignment rules are a straitjacket. While I accept that a lawful person can do chaotic things, and all that, for this mantra to work, everybody has to be on board with it, both in accepting that statement straight out, and in the degree to which it applies. It only takes one person to question an action in terms of alignment before it becomes an issue. I'd much prefer to just do without that hassle.
I know that some people view the alignment discussion from a philosophical perspective, but in terms of game play, the alignment system is just a set of ill-defined rules. Arguably, they can't be completely defined.
Anyway, I was very pleased when the GM for the most recent group I joined works without alignment for the most part. Paladins have an alignment, largely because it is supposed to be a straitjacket, and outsiders such as demons and deities have alignments, because they "embody cosmic principles" as my GM puts it. Clerics still have their aura, but it reflects the outsider they worship.
Mechanically, spells still work. Detect [Alignment] detects current intentions and thoughts, and most of the other alignment-based spells are mainly for use against outsiders, so there's not much change, there.
|
|
Good: Strives to help others.
Evil: Strives to harm others.
Lawful: Cares about the means he uses.
Chaotic: Cares about the ends he acheives.Hey, TOZ. I love this! Very simple.
Would you feel that it is also accurate if Evil instead says, "Strives to help themselves?"
Also, I just saw your FB link and sent you a friend request. We can't be real friends until you accept. FYI.
Oh dear, I'd better hurry over then. :)
I would say 'striving to help yourself' is more Neutral. It's when you add 'at the expense of others' that it turns to Evil. And to be capital 'E' Evil in my game, you have to really enjoy oppressing people. Someone doing it to help their loved ones is evil, but not quite Evil. You don't ping on the Detecdar unless you are seriously bad. Like Evil Dead bad.
From browsing around on these boards and others, I've noticed that quite a few GMs no longer use the Alignment system. My Question to you is this. If you no longer use the Alignment System, how do you handle issues of alignment (character actions, Clerics, Paladins, certain spells, etc) that pop up in your game?
This thread IS NOT a discussion about Alignment debates (what is a Lawful or Chaotic action, etc).
It is merely a discussion of how the GMs that no longer use Alignments in their game handle certain issues.
For the last few years, my campaigns have been alignment-free, with allegiances & codes of honor being the closest thing to alignment replacements. In these scenarios, anything alignment-dependent is gone. Not modified, GONE. This includes the Paladin. If a holy warrior type is desired, I use the Arcana Evolved champion class instead for basically the same niche. Good and evil still exist, but they're not codified in game mechanics.
As Pathfinder has become increasingly my RPG of choice, however, I'm toying with reintroducing it. As the Paizo staff have indicated, it's a convenient shorthand for NPC behavioral guidelines and I find it helps me get into the NPCs mindset faster, especially if it's a minor NPC without a lot of character background. I'm still not a huge fan, but considering I never thought I'd entertain using it again, that's a significant shift for me.
For PCs, though, I'd have it go into the background as much as possible. There will be no alignment debates bringing things to a screeching halt. Everything is colored with greater shades of gray & blurred lines.
If forced to do so, I'd adopt an alignment tracking system like the one found in Green Ronin's Advanced Players Manual or Gamemaster Manual (can't recall which at the moment).
|
|
If forced to do so, I'd adopt an alignment tracking system like the one found in Green Ronin's Advanced Players Manual or Gamemaster Manual (can't recall which at the moment).
Hey BPorter, Don't know if you read this whole thread but you might want to check this out if you didn't.
Visual Alignment Tracker. Its a free download and pretty cool.
I tend to run the my games with alignments, but the first session of an intended long running game, I sit down with my friends/players and ask the usual questions. What are you looking to do with your char? what do you want to accomplish? Your personal play style, etc... this also includes a minor debate of alignment so we as a group define what "Chaotic vs LAwful" and Evil vs good is.
And in general, i dont even bother with paying attention to what the players claim on their sheet. I go by their current actions and use that to determine their current alignment. I do give a little leniency to paladins too lol. And like to give xp awards to those that can stay true to their alignment as well.
But i'll also be the first to admit i can be biased, I;m a 2nd generation AD&D player and my parents and their friends are what i learned the game from lol.
|
|
How many of those debates are because people think alignment isn't open to interpretation? I mean people are saying here they use it for a convenient shorthand, if it's functioning as that then it's got some amount of concreteness. I'm proposing replacing it with something where people don't have that ease to fall back on.
And I believe the effect of that is we will have everyone arguing about it as a subjective thing instead of half thinking it is objective and half thinking it is subjective. Net change of zero.
If forced to do so, I'd adopt an alignment tracking system like the one found in Green Ronin's Advanced Players Manual or Gamemaster Manual (can't recall which at the moment).Hey BPorter, Don't know if you read this whole thread but you might want to check this out if you didn't.
Visual Alignment Tracker. Its a free download and pretty cool.
Yes, I need to check it out. Hadn't heard of it prior to this thread but it sounds like it might be cool. Thanks.
|
I still play with alignments, but for a while now, i've significantly changed the Detect line of spells.
Detect Alignment spells only detect the following: outsiders with appropriate alignment DESCRIPTORS, undead, abberations, clerics or paladins, other creatures with alignment auras or alignment descriptors. Creatures with alignments but none of the other qualifiers do not register under detection spells. Ex.: A NE barbarian does not show up under Detect Evil, but a CE abberation would appear under both Detect Evil and Detect Chaos due to its unnatural nature.
Also, in my game Detect Magic detects any creature of the Magical Beast type.
|
|
And my original point was never, and has never, been about making the debate easier. It was about removing any trace of objectivity to cling to. Whatever result that has I will be satisfied.
Well, that would make it easier to say 'well, that's just your opinion man'. :)
Of course I also think just removing alignment is a good idea (even for thinks like outsiders: no one gets to be inherently evil in my game). I was just trying to propose something that required less work in figuring out what to do with the alignment-based stuff.
Yeah, removing all references to alignment would be easier overall. I'm not even sure anything would be lost.
|
|
I also try to remember this bit when I play.
"I have made mistakes in my life, but basically I think I'm a good person."
I'm sorry, but you are not a Good person. You go through your life, you don't stab anyone in the face, you don't break any laws, you don't take pictures of naked children, and… so what? You want a medal for that? Shut up.
The sad fact of the matter is that if you aren't exerting yourself for a cause, if you aren't exerting yourself for something, you aren't Good. You probably aren't Evil, but seriously: get over yourself. Before you can really get into the mind of a Good character you honestly have to come to terms with the fact that you, as a person, are probably Neutral. Your character is a much better person than you are.
The reverse is also true for villains, and should come as no surprise to people who play Evil characters, since most people don't consider themselves Evil. Characters are generally much more than the players who play them. Villains are blacker, heroes are nobler, and when you play one of those characters you should come to terms with that. Even though it probably hurts you a little bit to contemplate it, if you're going to even try to play a Good character you need to play them as a much better person than you personally are.
|
|
Assasins are truly the only place the alignment system in pathfinder has gone that I truly don't agree with. There are instances in history where there are assassins that felt they were doing what's "right". Misguided as they may be, a man that feels he's sacrificing himself, or doing what's necessary for the "greater good" isn't necessarily "evil", wrong and stupid maybe, but not evil. For assassins, the only change I make is that they have to belong to a "guild" of sorts if they don't want to be evil. Normally a "good" assassin wouldn't work completely alone, at least that's how I see it.
The game's already got an alignment-flexible assassin: the Ranger.
Given his class abilities to creep up and plug someone in the back of the head, you've pretty much got most of the crunch right there.
Still use Good, Neutral, Evil.
The whole Law, Chaos just muddies the waters, and usually just dump that.
1-5 level = detect alignment does not work.
6-10 level = detect alignment might give a weak reading.
11-plus level = detect alignment works.
On the other hand, no races is bound by alignment restriction. The outer planes, are just disorganized demi-planes, and outer plane creatures have the same freedom to choose alignment as anyone else. (( aka evil angels, good demons, etc )).
Sorry, you can not be lazy and assume x creature has y alignment. You have to find that out for yourself, creature by creature, NPC by NPC, just like in the real world.