|
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.
I'd like to know this, too. My biggest gripe with 3.x is alignment. It'd rather use a motivation/faction/personality trait rule, but removing alignment form the game looks like digging dark grains of sand out of cement.
So, yeah, how do people do this?
|
|
I'd like to know this, too. My biggest gripe with 3.x is alignment. It'd rather use a motivation/faction/personality trait rule, but removing alignment form the game looks like digging dark grains of sand out of cement.
So, yeah, how do people do this?
I know. I've heard plenty of people on here claim they don't use the Alignment system in their games. But none of them really elaborate on what it is they are doing.
Personally, I like the alignment system. I've always been of the mind that Alignment is a tool, not a straight jacket.
But yeah. A little info from the folks who don't use it would be most interesting.
I've been of the same mind, but I find that a lot of people aren't. That, and I'm not fond of the spells, magic items and abilities that work in conjunction with alignment.
I don't... and simply put, you don't deal with the issues at all because they're caused BY the alignment system in the first place. Characters are defined by their role-playing... and I've always thought that the alignment system as a restrictor on character behavior is poor GM'ing... rather it should be a player tool to flesh things out.
As for Paladins, I'm notoriously lenient with them. I see no reason to penalize someone for playing a class they're interested in, and I do my best to work with them, and motivate them to do things that their deity wants them to do.
Alignment spells were easy to do away with. They merely target the enemy. Normally people start griping about game balance now, but whatever its honestly never been an issue... and I've been running it this way, consistently, since the grand old days of 2nd edition.
|
|
I don't... and simply put, you don't deal with the issues at all because they're caused BY the alignment system in the first place. Characters are defined by their role-playing... and I've always thought that the alignment system as a restrictor on character behavior is poor GM'ing... rather it should be a player tool to flesh things out.
As for Paladins, I'm notoriously lenient with them. I see no reason to penalize someone for playing a class they're interested in, and I do my best to work with them, and motivate them to do things that their deity wants them to do.
Alignment spells were easy to do away with. They merely target the enemy. Normally people start griping about game balance now, but whatever its honestly never been an issue... and I've been running it this way, consistently, since the grand old days of 2nd edition.
Interesting take. So you just ignore alignment all together.
Thanks for sharing your point of view and way of handling it, Nathan.Anyone else?
I don't... and simply put, you don't deal with the issues at all because they're caused BY the alignment system in the first place. Characters are defined by their role-playing... and I've always thought that the alignment system as a restrictor on character behavior is poor GM'ing... rather it should be a player tool to flesh things out.
As for Paladins, I'm notoriously lenient with them. I see no reason to penalize someone for playing a class they're interested in, and I do my best to work with them, and motivate them to do things that their deity wants them to do.
Alignment spells were easy to do away with. They merely target the enemy. Normally people start griping about game balance now, but whatever its honestly never been an issue... and I've been running it this way, consistently, since the grand old days of 2nd edition.
I was actually considering doing this myself. Just ignore it and don't worry about it. Paladin's can detect maybe someone with malicious intent (at least, what he considers malicious intent) or pure, capital E Evil, like demons.
Also, then you can have paladins of different faiths. One person's righteousness is another's blasphemy.
I don't... and simply put, you don't deal with the issues at all because they're caused BY the alignment system in the first place. Characters are defined by their role-playing... and I've always thought that the alignment system as a restrictor on character behavior is poor GM'ing... rather it should be a player tool to flesh things out.
As for Paladins, I'm notoriously lenient with them. I see no reason to penalize someone for playing a class they're interested in, and I do my best to work with them, and motivate them to do things that their deity wants them to do.
Alignment spells were easy to do away with. They merely target the enemy. Normally people start griping about game balance now, but whatever its honestly never been an issue... and I've been running it this way, consistently, since the grand old days of 2nd edition.
I was actually considering doing this myself. Just ignore it and don't worry about it. Paladin's can detect maybe someone with malicious intent (at least, what he considers malicious intent) or pure, capital E Evil, like demons.
Also, then you can have paladins of different faiths. One person's righteousness is another's blasphemy.
EXACTLY. Its not too hard, you'll want to take a look at the spells and make some judgement calls with certain abilities, but heck, you're the gm, it's your job.
|
|
I used to limit Detect Evil to actual EVIL, myself. Not Evil Alignments. I may start doing that again. I always thought it was silly for a Paladin, or someone casting that spell to detect someone's alignment if it was evil. Now, Evil Auras (Clerics, Demons, Devils, etc.) could be detected, just not average Joe with an Evil Alignment.
I used to limit Detect Evil to actual EVIL, myself. Not Evil Alignments. I may start doing that again. I always thought it was silly for a Paladin, or someone casting that spell to detect someone's alignment if it was evil. Now, Evil Auras (Clerics, Demons, Devils, etc.) could be detected, just not average Joe with an Evil Alignment.
I've never really liked PC's being aware of alignment in general you know? What would a personal add in golarion look like??!?
"SWO Female looking for a rumble in the jungle, will you breach my DR?!? Good aligned humanoids need not apply."
|
|
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 most part we did away with it. Only other worldly creatures or divine creatures have a alignment. By that I mean while everyone might have it on their sheet it doesn't have a effect on game play beyond as a RP tool for the player. Now divine class's those that get power from the gods. Cleric's and Paladin's they will faintly show as what ever there god is, since they act as a conduit for that power. Other worldly creatures, like demon's etc show up more so. Though I am not as strict on alignments even there. Like a Demon might be NE, CE or CN(borderline evil) for example.
So while we still use it, we down play it a lot and make it no where near as strict. (IE monsters maybe not be exactly the alignment their default is but at least with in one step of it.)
Evil Genius Prime - I'm not meaning this to start an argument, I just wanted to outline one of the underlying causes for discarding the system. I want to offer an alternative perspective.
I feel like the alignment system is under developed as it is. There has to be some reward or way to make it fun, otherwise it becomes a burden. Nothing should be used in the game that makes players unhappy... It usually gets swept under the rug and I am not surprised that many people don't use it. The only fix for an under-developed structure is to either to remove it or bolster it to a usable form.
I feel so strongly about this that I released a free product as an alternative to this. Much like experience points, frequent tangibly rewards can fix this for some players and GMs (as suggested by chapter 5 in the GMG).
I'm not saying you should download this product if you feel like dropping alignments from your game. If you feel like there should be more to it, give it a read... it's free! I just hate to see something flavorful going to waste.
Evil Genius Prime - I'm not meaning this to start an argument, I just wanted to outline one of the underlying causes for discarding the system. I want to offer an alternative perspective.
I feel like the alignment system is under developed as it is. There has to be some reward or way to make it fun, otherwise it becomes a burden. Nothing should be used in the game that makes players unhappy... It usually gets swept under the rug and I am not surprised that many people don't use it. The only fix for an under-developed structure is to either to remove it or bolster it to a usable form.
I feel so strongly about this that I released a free product as an alternative to this. Much like experience points, frequent tangibly rewards can fix this for some players and GMs (as suggested by chapter 5 in the GMG).
I'm not saying you should download this product if you feel like dropping alignments from your game. If you feel like there should be more to it, give it a read... it's free! I just hate to see something flavorful going to waste.
That's not argumentative in the least... :-) seriously though, what you're saying seems pretty similar to the white wolf personality/virtue system... which is a good thing. I'd actually prefer it if alignment was a bit more like that... here's a character trait, when you do things in line with your trait THIS cool thing happens.
My policy is to remove alignment for players but not NPCs or monsters. I'm fine with NPCs being restricted by their alignment, cuz I'm playing them. I just would rather the characters have more depth than 2 letters on their character sheet.
Really hasn't upset balance or anything. In fact, I forget I've done it most of the time. Someone on the boards will talk about alignment and I'll be like "oh yeaaaaah". I don't miss it.
My policy is to remove alignment for players but not NPCs or monsters. I'm fine with NPCs being restricted by their alignment, cuz I'm playing them. I just would rather the characters have more depth than 2 letters on their character sheet.
Really hasn't upset balance or anything. In fact, I forget I've done it most of the time. Someone on the boards will talk about alignment and I'll be like "oh yeaaaaah". I don't miss it.
This is kinda the direction I am heading. NPC have alignments that are hard coded. Players just player their characters the way they want while I keep the alignment hidden from the players.
The only alignment restriction I am going to enforce is the "don't be a dick" rule. Even without alignment, some players will use the "I am just playing my character" line as an excuse to dick with other players.
|
|
Evil Genius Prime - I'm not meaning this to start an argument, I just wanted to outline one of the underlying causes for discarding the system. I want to offer an alternative perspective.
I feel like the alignment system is under developed as it is. There has to be some reward or way to make it fun, otherwise it becomes a burden. Nothing should be used in the game that makes players unhappy... It usually gets swept under the rug and I am not surprised that many people don't use it. The only fix for an under-developed structure is to either to remove it or bolster it to a usable form.
I feel so strongly about this that I released a free product as an alternative to this. Much like experience points, frequent tangibly rewards can fix this for some players and GMs (as suggested by chapter 5 in the GMG).
I'm not saying you should download this product if you feel like dropping alignments from your game. If you feel like there should be more to it, give it a read... it's free! I just hate to see something flavorful going to waste.
Not taken as argumentative in the least. I actually downloaded your product and left a comment in the thread about it. Reading it is what spurred me to post this thread. I like using alignment in my games, and I always have. But of course, its never really been a huge issus in any game I've run, probably because I unconsciously downplay it anyway. LOL! But yeah, I love the Alignment Wheel you've made and I plan to use it in my future campaigns.
|
This is something I've struggled with as well. I've found it hard to stay in the objective seat as GM when I've been running things. Bad guys surrender to have the PCs slit their throat or run them through anyway...because they're CN. It's made things difficult sometimes, with me getting frustrated at the table, and then that bleeding over into the game. I've considered removing it myself, but haven't really figured a way to do it without breaking other things, such as the spells like Detect and so on. There are some interesting ideas here. I'm curious though...I have problems with people taking CN to mean 'do what I want without consequence', so how does it work when no one has an alignment to attempt to adhere to?
|
Come on Ladies and Gents. I know you're out there. Lets discuss this.
TriOmegaZero, You run minus alignments right?
Sorry, my alignment thread detector must be malfunctioning. :)
Mechanically, I treat all creatures as Neutral for spell effects. The exceptions are those with alignment subtypes and auras. those register as appropriate. I have yet to run a game with a paladin PC so I have not had to determine how to rule on Smite Evil.
As for character actions, I have NPCs react according to their personality. Which is not much different from basing it off their alignment.
Clerics and spells are much the same. Instead of alignment, it's their god who I compare their action to. But there will be warnings before loss of spells.
I'll post more as I think of it.
|
|
This is something I've struggled with as well. I've found it hard to stay in the objective seat as GM when I've been running things. Bad guys surrender to have the PCs slit their throat or run them through anyway...because they're CN. It's made things difficult sometimes, with me getting frustrated at the table, and then that bleeding over into the game. I've considered removing it myself, but haven't really figured a way to do it without breaking other things, such as the spells like Detect and so on. There are some interesting ideas here. I'm curious though...I have problems with people taking CN to mean 'do what I want without consequence', so how does it work when no one has an alignment to attempt to adhere to?
I had a group once that thought they could do whatever they wanted without consequence. Bunch of CN and CE folks. They got pissed at me when they went too far and I had the town guard show up to arrest them. One of the players even said, "But I'm chaotic evil!" To which I replied, "and Charles Manson was Chaotic Evil, but they still arrested his ass".
Some players forget that while they can play chracters of less than scrupulous alignments, there are still consequences for their actions.
And I hate those people that used Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to play "Crazy Guy". People of any alignment can be crazy.
I removed the Chaos Law part for a long time now (3.0). I have hard Good and Evil but have never had problems with PCs over using the Detect spells because I have a very regemented system of laws in my game. One of the great failures of those abilities is when Pally X detects EVil NPC and kills him outright. This gets Pallys in my world a close look at the end of the hangmans rope. A crime must be proven in a court of law in my world or my God of Justice will be all over your pc. When a player chooses his alignment I say pick Netural Evil or Good then you can put Law or Chaos as a guide for you to play by but it is not a hard ad fast rule of how the player should act. I like RP and good ideas seen through and not stopped because of an restriction.
|
And I hate those people that used Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to play "Crazy Guy". People of any alignment can be crazy.
Ugh, had one of those in a group I was in. He also had a Rod of Wonder that he would activate in our general direction every other round or so. The Rod eventually shrunk him to 1/12 his original size and then turned him permanently blue, so there was some justice to it... Although the DM immediately fixed it so that we wouldn't feed him to a cat
|
I've been working up a draft of alignment-free rules, myself. They're pretty rough and mostly amount to "Ignore alignment," but do take into account things normally determined by alignment, such as a cleric following their god's teachings.
Oh, and I just said "Paladin is gone." and was done with it. I figure a paladin is more of a role-play choice (probably clerically based) that might be subjected to a prestige class, but it as a base class never jived with me. Somehow being the ultimate champion of all that is good and righteous never seemed like a 1-20 path to me.
Of course, I haven't tested this variant yet, but plan to on my next campaign (along with another, unrelated variant).
|
|
And I hate those people that used Chaotic Neutral as an excuse to play "Crazy Guy". People of any alignment can be crazy.Ugh, had one of those in a group I was in. He also had a Rod of Wonder that he would activate in our general direction every other round or so. The Rod eventually shrunk him to 1/12 his original size and then turned him permanently blue, so there was some justice to it... Although the DM immediately fixed it so that we wouldn't feed him to a cat
I would have stepped on him. LOL!
|
|
I've been working up a draft of alignment-free rules, myself. They're pretty rough and mostly amount to "Ignore alignment," but do take into account things normally determined by alignment, such as a cleric following their god's teachings.
Oh, and I just said "Paladin is gone." and was done with it. I figure a paladin is more of a role-play choice (probably clerically based) that might be subjected to a prestige class, but it as a base class never jived with me. Somehow being the ultimate champion of all that is good and righteous never seemed like a 1-20 path to me.
Of course, I haven't tested this variant yet, but plan to on my next campaign (along with another, unrelated variant).
Interesting read. I'd like to read it again once you're finished with it.
|
|
I don't mind the alignment system in general. I never viewed it as a straight-jacket, but rather as a player tool to define how his character normally acts. A lawful character may occasionally do something chaotic, but he is generally lawful. Just like there are good people in real life who occasionally do bad things. People make mistakes. Alignments are generalizations. The problem exists because people think these generalizations are rules, they are not.
|
|
I don't mind the alignment system in general. I never viewed it as a straight-jacket, but rather as a player tool to define how his character normally acts. A lawful character may occasionally do something chaotic, but he is generally lawful. Just like there are good people in real life who occasionally do bad things. People make mistakes. Alignments are generalizations. The problem exists because people think these generalizations are rules, they are not.
This is basically my view as well. In other words, the alignment matches the character, not the other way around.
Unfortunately I see alignment being used as a crutch for lacking a personality. The alignment-free variant idea is a way (at least to me) to see what players do without that crutch.I actually irritated a DM of mine once because I had a relatively interesting character, but because of that forgot to assign an alignment. It came up because of an alignment-based effect. Oops!
I have found luck with treating alignment as talent for certain types of magic, were Lawful Good people are good at Spells that are either Lawful or Good , and Chaotic Evil were just good at those spells but that causes them to be vulnerable too the opposite effects. It doesn't really effect their behavior. It worked when I tried it but my players seem to prefer the old school system so I went back to it.
|
|
I run very alignment-light, too, with the idea that pretty much everyone is neutral unless they have an aura (outsiders, clerics, etc.) or take extraordinary efforts to be benevolent/malevolent. I find that just allowing paladins to smite whoever their particular enemy is doesn't disrupt the game significantly; they're already pretty heavily limited on X/day smite usage.
I've thought about that too. How do you think the PF smite should be handled? I was thinking it would be the regular 3.5 smite for all non-aligned creatures and PF smite for anything with a subtype/aura.
I just use PF smite for everything, I haven't yet had any problem with it.
Hehehe :D
I don't... and simply put, you don't deal with the issues at all because they're caused BY the alignment system in the first place. Characters are defined by their role-playing... and I've always thought that the alignment system as a restrictor on character behavior is poor GM'ing... rather it should be a player tool to flesh things out.
As for Paladins, I'm notoriously lenient with them. I see no reason to penalize someone for playing a class they're interested in, and I do my best to work with them, and motivate them to do things that their deity wants them to do.
Alignment spells were easy to do away with. They merely target the enemy. Normally people start griping about game balance now, but whatever its honestly never been an issue... and I've been running it this way, consistently, since the grand old days of 2nd edition.
I think they were intended to be hard to play. You have to be a boyscout, while others have much more freedom. You also have to get the party to buy into your boyscout mottos. Now if a player wanted the paladin powers without the code that would be ok to, but I would not consider it a paladin.
Not taken as argumentative in the least. I actually downloaded your product and left a comment in the thread about it. Reading it is what spurred me to post this thread. I like using alignment in my games, and I always have. But of course, its never really been a huge issus in any game I've run, probably because I unconsciously downplay it anyway. LOL! But yeah, I love the Alignment Wheel you've made and I plan to use it in my future campaigns.
I just saw the comment and I appreciate it. :D
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.
|
I usually use alignment as a guideline, and as long as the pc's aren't grossly overstepping alignment, I let them get away with quite a bit. The chaos/law axis is less important to me, however, the good/evil axis is. There is a distinct basic difference between good and evil, so I'm a little more strict with it.
As far as Paladins go, as long as they fight for what's just, and don't go down to dirty tactics, lying, cheating, stealing, etc, I'm pretty okay with whatever they do. Monks can be "lawful" and still act however they want, just so long as they remember they're still lawful for purposes of spells and effects relating to alignment.
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.
|
|
Even for cleaning the stove? :)
Yeah, the per day use is a pretty good limiter.
*is now imagining a commercial for new Smite Evil all-purpose cleaner*
Kitty Cat smells ruining your day?
Smite-All Brand now introduces SMITE-ALL KITTY LITTER!IN THE NAME OF SMITO, GOD OF SMITING! CAT POOP, BEGONE!
Also try our other great products!
Smite-All Stain Eliminator
Smite-All Air Freshener
Smite-All Vacuum Cleaners
Smite-All Telemarketer Calls
and our brand new Smite-All Ex-Spouse Remover!
And remember...
If you're not using Smite-All, you're a Heretic!
I prefer not to use alignments when I DM. For the spells and other things that used to target alignment, I have them target specific creature types instead.
A Paladin's Smite works against demons, devils, fiendish creatures, chromatic dragons and undead. His "detect evil" likewise detects the presence of those "creatures of darkness."
Detect Alignment, Protection from Alignment and Magic Circle spells detect or ward against a type of supernatural being, such as elementals, undead, fey, demons, celestials, and so forth.
It works really well.
Yeah, I don't mind it as a guide to roleplaying, but as a rules mechanic, it's always rubbed me the wrong way. Definitely going alignment-free with my upcoming game. Might as well get all the house rules on the table before we start. The group will be new to PF (a couple are new to 3e), and I'm adding in some Trailblazer rules and now removing alignment. Getting it all straightened out before we start is a good idea.
And where can I get some of this Smite-All?
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.
I feel so strongly about this that I released a free product as an alternative to this. Much like experience points, frequent tangibly rewards can fix this for some players and GMs (as suggested by chapter 5 in the GMG).
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...