Anyone else feel the alignment system as it stands is almost a complete waste? I've recently (within the past year) started playing in some nWoD games and the Morality/Humanity/What-Have-You systems are so good. The alignment system is.... not. How do you really play a NG character? It either comes out as being LG or CE most of the time. I think some serious changes to the alignment system are in order. Or am I totally off the reservation with this one? I mean, the Morality system just brings in more deep and meaningful RP'ing. It's what the system was designed to do.
Edit: This is not meant to start a flamewar. I am simply disappointed with the alignment system and would like some other opinions as to why or why not the alignment system works for you.
The only time I use alignment is when my players want a villianous campaign (not evil PCs, but actual villains) or a goodly, bathed-in-light campaign (rare). Most of the time I aschew alignment in favor of either a virtue/vice system or a taint variant (two flavors of taint).
I prefer the WoD approach to roleplay, but I hate the game mechanics.
|
I am going to assume that you are not trolling, and are actually trying to start a discussion that will not end in a flamewar.
Personally, i never cared much for alignment, and see it as a suggestion, not a rule. However, as it is hardwired into the game, especially considering that characters higher then level 5 are seen in detect spells, not mentioning clerics and paladins...
If a character in question is a cleric or a paladin (i dunno if oracles or inquisitors have auras), i am hard on them as a GM in that matter that they HAVE to adhere to the tenets of the alignment they first wrote on their character sheet. If they don't, well i hit a dot for every alignment transgressions, even multiple dots if it is a bigger one, and when i feel enough dots have been accumulated, i change their alignment and have them loose their powers.
If a character in question is anything else, i take note on their behavior and tell them to change their alignment accordingly, but there is no penalty for that.
The point is that it would be very difficult to change the alignment system as it is, because it is very intertwined with the rules of the game (creatures, spells..)
If a character in question is a cleric or a paladin (i dunno if oracles or inquisitors have auras), i am hard on them as a GM in that matter that they HAVE to adhere to the tenets of the alignment they first wrote on their character sheet. If they don't, well i hit a dot for every alignment transgressions, even multiple dots if it is a bigger one, and when i feel enough dots have been accumulated, i change their alignment and have them loose their powers.
If a character in question is anything else, i take note on their behavior and tell them to change their alignment accordingly, but there is no penalty for that.
I assume that you let your players know before hand about the dotting process right?
Do you use the Golarian Setting? And if so how do you deal with a characters Unique interpretation of a Deitie's tennants for example?
And if a player has a religion splat book like faiths of purity or w/e, how do you deal with the nuanced portrayals of the religions? (An example is Saraenrae, she's NG, and is pretty ok w/ everybody including most all of the Evil deities, however when it comes to Ravagug, no quareter and Kill on sight.)
The only time I use alignment is when my players want a villianous campaign (not evil PCs, but actual villains) or a goodly, bathed-in-light campaign (rare). Most of the time I aschew alignment in favor of either a virtue/vice system or a taint variant (two flavors of taint).
I prefer the WoD approach to roleplay, but I hate the game mechanics.
I'm curious: could you elaborate on some of these variant systems you use/have used?
I'm curious: could you elaborate on some of these variant systems you use/have used?The only time I use alignment is when my players want a villianous campaign (not evil PCs, but actual villains) or a goodly, bathed-in-light campaign (rare). Most of the time I aschew alignment in favor of either a virtue/vice system or a taint variant (two flavors of taint).
I prefer the WoD approach to roleplay, but I hate the game mechanics.
Which one? Virtue/Vice or the modified taint system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system is a cornerstone of the game system since 1st edition. It is indeed, hardwired into the game, now even more than then.
That said, lots of people dislike it and have houseruled it out of their own games, which takes some work, but is doable.
Personally, I like alignments, if used correctly as roleplaying aids, rather than straightjackets. I like having a black and white world where its relatively easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and the bad guys are Evil with a capital E, so you can feel particularly good about yourself when you kick their ass. Is it realistic? Not in the least. But neither are dragons and magic.
Which one? Virtue/Vice or the modified taint system?I'm curious: could you elaborate on some of these variant systems you use/have used?The only time I use alignment is when my players want a villianous campaign (not evil PCs, but actual villains) or a goodly, bathed-in-light campaign (rare). Most of the time I aschew alignment in favor of either a virtue/vice system or a taint variant (two flavors of taint).
I prefer the WoD approach to roleplay, but I hate the game mechanics.
Both? But if I have to choose, make it the modified taint system.
Me I personally remove it for mortal charachters, ie non outsiders. Thus allowing things to be more dependent on roleplaying and what not. However the spells still exist and work. take smite evil, it works just like it is writen; however the only things that are evil are evil outsiders as they are made of the essence of evil.
This fits alignment for me well enough. Planar beings are composed of an essence, such as devils literally being composed of the essence of evil and law. thus they are evil in my setting.
curious to know how this taint mechanicism might work though.
Anyone else feel the alignment system as it stands is almost a complete waste?
Yes. Think of them as a guideline only.
I think moral codes and such things as nature & demeanor were great roleplay tools, taking the alignment straight jacket off and replacing it with a choice of moral scales and tools that add more motive-driven character play.
Then again, if the choice of moral codes open to the characters are too wide and the players don't know how to reconcile a varied array of characters with drastically different moral compasses, you could be in for a bumpy ride.
Personally, I like alignments, if used correctly as roleplaying aids, rather than straightjackets.
That's how I feel as well. However my game worlds are NEVER black and white. But that's probably because I generally play shifty rogue-types who live in the grey. For me, the only absolutes alignment-wise are for outsiders (angels/celestials are always good, devils are always lawful evil, demons are always chaotic evil).
We've had a few characters shift alignments in our games. The ones that had the most drastic changes were our original cleric from our longest running game. The cleric went from neutral good, to neutral, to lawful evil, to neutral evil, and finally to chaotic good. He had become disillusioned with the church, and turned to drinking, and generally not caring (NG to TN). One day, he got drunk, burst into a temple during mass (in his formal robes no less), and started slandering the church. The churchgoers were convinced he was possessed, and burned him at the stake. He made a deal with a devil, and became a blackguard (TN to LE; shortly after this he became an NPC). Eventually, he grew tired of serving, bargained with a powerful demon and temporarily took over a level of Hell (LE to NE). The PC's eventually, and hesitantly, helped Asmodeus reinstall the former ruler of that level of Hell, and the blackguard was to be tormented for eternity. Later, due to the PC's time-traveling, the cleric's being burned at the stake was prevented, and he started worshipping Olidammara, becoming chaotic good.
Me I personally remove it for mortal charachters, ie non outsiders. Thus allowing things to be more dependent on roleplaying and what not. However the spells still exist and work. take smite evil, it works just like it is writen; however the only things that are evil are evil outsiders as they are made of the essence of evil.
Do you give some kind of buff to Clerics and Paladins? This seems like it would strongly reduce the effectiveness of both classes (the Paladin in particular)
nWoD rates you on the standard acceptable actions for your species, using a scale of 0-10.
So how does this work for things like goblins, for example? A goblin 7 might well be a human 2...it seems this would be a bear to integrate into any D20-style game where there are tangible effects of good and evil.
I guess I see the Alignment system as fine within the type of game world that is being modeled. If I want 'grey morality' I will (and do) play GURPS, where the very concept of Alignment isn't baked into the system. Playing Pathfinder without alignment would be much like trying to modify Pathfinder into a 'point=based' system...yes, you could do it, but any gain in functionality is more than offset by the amount of work you'd have to go through to rebalance everything. Seems simpler at that point to use a system designed to accomodate it.
Both? But if I have to choose, make it the modified taint system.
This is a list of basic changes.
Global changes (applied to both systems):
- alignment is completely removed
- outsiders keep species subtypes (demon, protean, etc.)
- alignment spells instead function against outsider (species), undead, or fey
- detect alignment changed to detect outsider [species], undead, or fey
- paladin's smite functions against one specified type of non-humanoid/non-animal creature (subtype required for outsiders) per every four hit die
- either no deities or distant deities (a la Eberron)
Virtue/Vice:
- Vices == Envy, Gluttony, Deceit, Greed, Lust, Pride, Sloth, Wrath
- Virtues == Charity, Justice, Temperance, Innocence, Truth
- virtues and vices are not polar opposites, only labels
- every non-native outsider must have a virtue or vice as a subtype
- clerics choose a vice/virtue in place of deity, but may still follow a certain religion
- detect virtue/vice spell added; reveals outsiders of the particular vice/virtue as well as surface thoughts that reflect said vice/virtue
Modified Taint system:
- two forms of taint used, Black and Green (for easy reference; I've called them different things from time to time)
- Black taint works just like the regular taint rules from Unearthed Arcana, but greatly expanded effects to choose from
- Green taint works like radioactive mutations, only alters the body
- tieflings begin play with minimum Green taint values
- undead and dhampir have minimum Black taint values
- proteans have minimum Green taint values
- outsiders pick up either taint much faster than mortals
- both forms of taint offer benefits as well as drawbacks
- paladin's smite functions against both types of taint and detects taint instead of evil; important to note that paladin is not immune to taint (antipaladin class based around the acquisition of taint)
- too much taint results in a homebrew "eldritch horror" template, but I continue to allow players to use these characters
While I can see NG can end up towards LG at times, if you think it also ends up towards CE, then perhaps its your play style, not the alignment system....
Or your perception of the alignment system.
Because it uses terms like "Good," "Evil," "Lawful," and "Chaotic," folks bring their own perspective on what those words mean and thus PC-GM conflict occurs when not everyone is on the same page on how they interpret what the various alignments mean.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a D&D legacy. It it possible to remove from the game, but it does affect things. Good and evil are tangible forces in the D&D and Pathfinder universes, and there are abilities, spells, and other effects that require it.
Although I do not have a problem with alignment, a lot of players seem to not apply their alignment tendencies properly to their characters. Good characters don't go through life killing with a reason. Neutral characters often do not balance out their life with good and evil acts. Evil characters don't go through life killing all the time. This can be frustrating to deal with.
However, the biggest issues usually come up when a paladin comes into play. This is obviously because the paladin has to be lawful and good or lose all of their abilities. Many players cannot work together in character to overcome the paladin's restrictions, that's why there's a lot of discussion certain types of evil characters not allowed into a game where there's a paladin in the party already (and vice versa).
Alignment should be a suggestion and a template for players to run their characters, but often it turns into a straitjackets when players do not understand or apply it properly.
Neutral characters often do not balance out their life with good and evil acts.
I actually don't view most neutral characters as being "balanced" between good and evil. Champions of the Balance was a Gygax conceit (stolen from Moorcock) that I never really bought into. Frankly, I see most neutral characters as people who don't really believe strongly in much of anything. Folks who act in what they see as their own self-interest almost exclusively, but avoid being outright nasty to others because, well, that has consequences.
They are kind of like American political independents, some of whom are moderates whose political views happen to fall between the two major parties, but most of whom are politically apathetic and uninformed, voting only occasionally, if at all.
|
|
If a character in question is a cleric or a paladin (i dunno if oracles or inquisitors have auras), i am hard on them as a GM in that matter that they HAVE to adhere to the tenets of the alignment they first wrote on their character sheet. If they don't, well i hit a dot for every alignment transgressions, even multiple dots if it is a bigger one, and when i feel enough dots have been accumulated, i change their alignment and have them loose their powers.
If a character in question is anything else, i take note on their behavior and tell them to change their alignment accordingly, but there is no penalty for that.
I assume that you let your players know before hand about the dotting process right?
Do you use the Golarian Setting? And if so how do you deal with a characters Unique interpretation of a Deitie's tennants for example?
And if a player has a religion splat book like faiths of purity or w/e, how do you deal with the nuanced portrayals of the religions? (An example is Saraenrae, she's NG, and is pretty ok w/ everybody including most all of the Evil deities, however when it comes to Ravagug, no quareter and Kill on sight.)
Of course i do, it wouldn't be fair if i didn't.
No, i do not use Golarion. I use FR or Eberron. I ran Kingmaker, but it was in a pseudo-golarion.I tell players that my interpretation of an alignment is what counts, and explain in detail what it means to be a certain alignment. I am, of course, open to discussion, but my opinion is not easy to change.
Personally i use this page to help me with choosing and playing an alignment. http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html showed it to my group but it was passed over.
|
|
Edit: This is not meant to start a flamewar. I am simply disappointed with the alignment system and would like some other opinions as to why or why not the alignment system works for you.
It took me *years* to appreciate the alignment system. As a child and a teenager, I hated it. It felt restrictive, confining, unrealistic and unfun. I played Shadowrun, which had no morality at all, and then WoD (both 'em). At first, I disliked WoD's morality, but I eventually saw it for what it was--an inherent part of the setting.
I came back to D&D a year before the Pathfinder alpha & beta came out and I've reconnected with the idea of alignment. It's personality (oWoD archetypes or NWoD Virtues & Vices) *and* morality wrapped up in one.
To answer your question: a NG character can be anyone from the average person (Humanity 7) to most comic book heroes; it's the person who does the right thing, regardless of whether or not it's legal.
The descriptions in the Pathfinder book are much better than the ones in 1st or 2nd edition D&D.
|
Here's what I use for my campaigns. It allows characters to use alignments as well as other allegiances!
Allegiances
Note: This mechanic replaces Alignments, incorporating a simplified version of Alignments into a modified d20 Modern Allegiance system.At character creation, three allegiances are selected and ordered from 1 (most important) to 3 (less important). Allegiances represent a character's primary beliefs, loyalties, motivation, and alignment:
- An Ideal, Philosophy, or Alignment (Good, Lawful Good, Evil, or Chaotic Evil)
- A Lifelong Pursuit, Goal, or more immediate Quest
- Organization or Group
- Powerful Individual or Creature
The Allegiance system is a simple guide for defining a character's most important beliefs, values, motivations, and goals. As with Alignments, Allegiances change based upon a character's decisions and actions through game play. Characters that do not select an alignment as an allegiance are considered unaligned (neutral) for all in-game effects.
The same alignment restrictions apply as normal. For example, Barbarians and Bards cannot select Lawful Good, Druids cannot select Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, Monks cannot select Chaotic Evil, Paladins must select Lawful Good as an allegiance, and Assassins must select Evil as an allegiance.
All other in-game effects for alignments remain unchanged.
Monsters with DR 10/good, Align Weapon spell, Detect Alignment spells, etc. all remain the same. Smite Evil works the same way on any creature that has Evil or Chaotic Evil allegiances, is in the process of committing an evil act, or has an allegiance to an evil or chaotic evil organization. All monsters with the evil alignment or evil sub-type will have an allegiance to evil as well.
Self Preservation, Family, Friends, or Loved Ones are presumed allegiances and do not need to be included as an Allegiance. Where such close relationship allegiances fall when choices between their other important allegiances are to be made will remain entirely up to the player to decide.
|
Anyone else feel the alignment system as it stands is almost a complete waste? I've recently (within the past year) started playing in some nWoD games and the Morality/Humanity/What-Have-You systems are so good. The alignment system is.... not. How do you really play a NG character? It either comes out as being LG or CE most of the time. I think some serious changes to the alignment system are in order. Or am I totally off the reservation with this one? I mean, the Morality system just brings in more deep and meaningful RP'ing. It's what the system was designed to do.
I used to tell my players that I would assign them an alignment after a few play sessions.
In the past alignment has been more of a hassle than its worth. But after you get over the fact alignment isn't anything more than a couple letters on the character sheet its not that big of a deal.
As a dm I try not to paint myself into an alignment corner.
I try and have reaasonable reactions to the pcs in game conduct.
Most of the arguments devolve into pcs making wild rationalizations for suspect behaviour and dms trying to come down on them, hard or otherwise.
Knowing your players and what they might do as well as communicating about what your expecdting from the game go a long way. Besides most alignment arguments devolve into pcs trying to get away with something and dms trying to put the hammer down on them. Usually both sides dig their heels in and aren't being all that reasonable
Don't think about alignment before you think about the character itself first. Figure out the character's general attitude, values, beliefs, and how he likes to handle things - then decide which alignment is most appropriate for the character.
Remember, for new players, alignment helps determine their own motivations and moral choices when first learning to think "like the character".
I'm OK with alignment, and I'm perfectly fine accepting it as a game mechanic.
Alignment is something general - a few minor acts won't always make or break a person, but a single grand act can cause a drastic change. That should be the exception, though.
Anyone else feel the alignment system as it stands is almost a complete waste?Yes. It adds nothing but arguments and rules bloat. I have happily cut it from my games and never looked back.
Out of curiosity, how do you adjudicate "detect" spells, and items that are alignment dependent?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All creatures are treated as Neutral when determining spell effects and aligned item interactions, unless they have an alignment aura or subtype, such as clerics/paladins and outsiders. Paladins now have Smite, which works on any target. (Note that I play 3.5, so the PF paladin hasn't come into play. I would probably still run the same way however.)
How do you really play a NG character? It either comes out as being LG or CE most of the time.
I like both the alignment system and the Neutral Good alignment. Neutral Good is my favorite to play, with the character more concerned about the good of his actions than whether it is going with the law or not going with the law. If the law of the land supports the greater good, that's great, then he supports the law. If it doesn't, then he opposes the law. If the law doesn't go either way, then he doesn't worry about the law, it's not the law the matters, but the greater good. He's always trying to be introspective, thinking "what is the best thing I can do in this situation for the good of all. I am an instrument of Good and I should work to serve the Good, but does my current course serve the Good or myself? I understand what I'm doing, but is this the Right Thing? What would be the Right Thing?"
Basically, an introspective type that tries to be an idealist, who realizes some laws are faulty and some aren't, and tries to work for what is best in the best way. He'll break the law if the law opposes doing what is good, but he doesn't look at laws in an adversarial way.
He believes in the motto "The people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" and he counts himself among those rough men, but even so he tries to only use force when necessary and abstain from unnecessary violence.
He is also fond of the expression "All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." He believes idleness is a fault only allowed to those who are less than good, and wished of those who are evil, that their own sloth may limit their spread of evil.
He will work with Lawful Good and Chaotic Good to get the job done. After all, it's more important that the job gets done for the good of the people, and in a manner appropriate for the Good to do it, than that it gets done in accordance with some Lawful or Chaotic method.
That's how he handles Neutral Good. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you really play a NG character? It either comes out as being LG or CE most of the time.
Here's how I see it;
A Chaotic Good character might be so concerned with not following the rules, or with a 'laws are bad' or 'authority is inherently corrupt' viewpoint that it can stand in the way of the ultimate good of the people. They seem very much like the sort of people who might, with the best intentions, end up freeing domesticated animals (who end up dying because they have no wilderness survival skills), or meddle in the affairs of others, riding in on a white horse and attempting to liberate people who may not need (or want) rescuing, and with no clear agenda for 'after' other than 'get rid of the authoritah!' A Chaotic Good partisan might overthrow someone they see as a dictator, completely disregarding that this individual / system of governance was *chosen by his people,* and, in his absence, the nation dissolves into chaos and rioting and looting, while the Chaotic Good individual is somewhere far away, breaking their arm patting themselves on the back about what a great job they did freeing all those little people from the evil king/government.
A Lawful Good character may similarly find their 'good' actions restricted by their adherence to law and respect for legitimate authority (and, in this sort of setting, 'legitimate authority' could mean the inbred drooling psychopath who inherited his throne from his equally-inbred father). While the CG guy Robin Hood's onto the scene to harrass the oppressor (leading to a brutal crackdown on the common folk he's 'saving'), the LG guy might try to encourage the people to find lawful means of fixing their situation, rather than rising up against the brutal, yet lawful, authority, leading to the people wasting their lives trying to 'work within the system,' when 'the system' is hopelessly flawed, corrupt and / or weighted against them. As a terrible ruler might not be bound by the laws they pass down upon the hoi-polloi, the people will basically be stuck in the position of having brought a nerfbat to a gunfight, as those who make the laws they are so scrupulously not breaking are always going to be one step ahead.
Either LG or CG may be trapped by their idealism, and unable to make a choice to respect a good law, or defy a cruel authority, while the Neutral Good person doesn't care whether or not the law or the authority is inherently worthy of respect or a social facade that is perpetuating a cycle of cruelty and injustice, only that *the people* are not being oppressed by their circumstances.
Just as Neutral Evil is the purest form of evil, utter selfishness, with no regard whatsoever for rules or honor, or anarchy or rabble-rousing, so is Neutral Good the purest form of good, unfettered by allegiance to authority or a short-sighted knee-jerk bias against any sort of imposed order. (Note that 'purest' doesn't necessarily mean 'best.' 'Pure' iron is less effective than the steel made from iron sprinkled with carbon, after all... In a situation where the laws are just, Lawful Good may be more effective. In a situation where the authority is legitimate, but wicked, a Chaotic Good approach may be best. The benefit to Neutral Good, is that he can tack in either direction, as the circumstances dictate, while the LG or CG 'extremist' is less likely to be able to set aside his own ethical beliefs and 'go against his nature' to do the most Good.)
This isn't to say that NG heroes won't still have moral dilemnas, but their stance on law or chaos won't be what sells the drama, it will be decisions about 'greater good' and 'the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one.' There's not really a right or wrong. Sometimes, in fiction, heroes will make the 'right' choice, and refuse to allow some to fall to save the greater population, and then be saved by writer's fiat, as the threat just sort of goes away anyway. In the real-world, this doesn't happen as much, and we are stuck with unpleasant realities such as triage, where a medic has to decide to allow certain massively wounded individuals to die, so that he can save the greater number of less-wounded casualties. In a less military scenario, farmers have to choose to kill certain animals, to save the herd, or cut down blighted trees, to save the orchard, etc.
In a game, we get to decide whether or not we want to craft these moral dilemna or not, and whether or not to punish or reward choices that agree with our own personal notions of right and wrong. IMO, that's a terrible thing to do, but many paladin-dilemna threads take that exact route, either punishing a paladin for some artificially imposed circumstance that has no real bearing on the fantasy roleplaying experience, save to serve as a political baseball bat to bludgeon one's players with, or reversing that and pushing a different personal belief system on one's players by punishing anyone who attempts to show any semblance of mercy, compassion or forgiveness by having anyone they show mercy to come back later and kill and eat a bunch of people, to 'prove' how wrong-headed it was to be merciful.
That's really the only serious problem with alignment in D&D or PF, is GMs who use it as a bludgeon, and people who get too wrapped up in equating alignment with real-world morals and ethics, forgetting that, in the game world, murdering and looting people whose 'crime' is that they have differently colored skin is 'good' in game terms.
Alignment, IMO, is best used when it's just a game mechanic. Attempting to equate it too forcefully with real-world ethics and morals can only lead to arguments and threads with 'paladin' in the title.
While I don't let alignment constrict the way my PC's act, I do feel it is a waste in that so many rules are governed by alignment. Magic weapons and items which can only be used by such and such, spells which are evil and can't/shouldn't be cast by "good" PC's. These all seem so hokey to me. I also have just dropped alignment. As far as detect spells, see a couple posts up. I do almost the same thing. It just seems like something that needs a complete overhaul, or it needs to be removed.
|
|
Anyone else feel the alignment system as it stands is almost a complete waste?Yes. It adds nothing but arguments and rules bloat. I have happily cut it from my games and never looked back.
QFT! Alignment is a pretty out dated concept. I find Alignment to be a waste of space in the books. If anything, specific codes ala Faiths of Purity are much better for Clerics / Paladins.
|
I guess I'd like more information/description of the 'outdated' point of view. How do you figure? And what makes this concept any more or less 'old' than that of an elf being good at using bows? Or hit points? Spell slots? Etc, etc, etc?
I see alignment as a tool that keeps all your characters from simply being copies of yourself. If you play a character that just 'does what feels right', then you're only roleplaying on the first level. There's SO MUCH MORE to the game when you start to consider how differently someone with another ethical and moral mindset might behave. Alignment helps you do that without needing a minor in Philosophy.
So, again, why is this 'old'?
I guess I'd like more information/description of the 'outdated' point of view. How do you figure? And what makes this concept any more or less 'old' than that of an elf being good at using bows? Or hit points? Spell slots? Etc, etc, etc?
I see alignment as a tool that keeps all your characters from simply being copies of yourself. If you play a character that just 'does what feels right', then you're only roleplaying on the first level. There's SO MUCH MORE to the game when you start to consider how differently someone with another ethical and moral mindset might behave. Alignment helps you do that without needing a minor in Philosophy.
So, again, why is this 'old'?
It's old because it has passed from first edition down through the years without ever being updated and expanded. I don't think people would be as anti-alignment if it were able to address a wider variety of ideas and lifestyles. Let's look at the elf and his bow. The archetype stays the same, but the rules have evolved around it. An elf may still get bonuses to his bow use, but the elf has evolved from a single race/class thing in first edition to a race that can be combined with any class. The bow has gone from being a single weapon to a variety of different weapons with different statistics. The concept is the same, but the details are very different.
Hit points and spell slots have also been tweaked along the way. They may operate under the same premise as they always have, but there are additional feats and, in the case of spell slots, some new rules that have allowed them to function in new ways (meta-magic feats, for example). And both hp and spell slots have also taken some flack over the years by other systems. Spell points seems to be a routine change for spell slots. While I've seen other damage systems, hit points keep coming back because lots of other things have been tried and they just don't work as well.
But alignments aren't like that. They've been sacrosanct in the d20 style games from the beginning. They're too limiting and they don't tell you enough about your character to be a useful roleplaying tool because they are abstract and there are too few of them. If there were a third axis added in to allow for another set of options (that would be 18 more options than the current system, for a total of 27 different philosophies of life), it might begin to feel more relevant and up-to-date.
I'm not sure what that third axis would be, but that's because we've addressed the whole thing with a house ruled set of virtues and vices that allows for more than a thousand different permutations based on every character having to choose a major and minor virtue and vice from a list of roughly 20 each. For example, a character might have fidelity (loyalty) and charity (generosity) as his virtues and deceit and wrath for his vices. He is loyal to his own and takes care of the needs of the oppressed, but he's hot headed and willing to lie to get to those ends. What alignment is that?
I would say that how the DM uses alignment, should be based upon the reasons that the PCs do things. For instance:
The PCs of the campaign that I am currently playing in like to go out and kill things because they are evil. The very act of being evil was enough to send the PCs on a slaughter fest.
That said, one of the PCs spent the better part of 3 months of in game time raping a blind man, under the guise of "I am a chaotic neutral sailor, it's what we do."
Another member of the group decided to stab people with a dagger to warn us of a nighttime assault. She claims to be chaotic neutral too.
Now last time I checked, in real life we call these two acts, assault with a deadly weapon and rape, which you can do serious jail time for.
Alignment does matter, but it strictly depends on your DM as to how much it matters, it should be a guiding conscious for you in your decisions on how to play your character. It should not be something to hide behind saying "My character is still chaotic good/neutral because I felt that the orphans were cold so I set the orphanage on fire, I did a good deed the orphans are no longer cold."
Note to self: In my current game cast detect evil on party members and run away.....
|
|
If there were a third axis added in to allow for another set of options (that would be 18 more options than the current system, for a total of 27 different philosophies of life), it might begin to feel more relevant and up-to-date.
It's too bad you don't have an example, because I just can't relate. The two-line axis works so very, very well that I can't see any genuine need to adapt it. I'd love to see what's missing, honestly.
My typical observation of alignment rejection is that people want to modify their characters' beliefs situationally. That, of course, is what alignment is meant to prevent, so I admittedly lack empathy.
For example, a character might have fidelity (loyalty) and charity (generosity) as his virtues and deceit and wrath for his vices. He is loyal to his own and takes care of the needs of the oppressed, but he's hot headed and willing to lie to get to those ends. What alignment is that?
Neutral Good.
One of the core traits of Good is seeing to other's needs and enjoying it.
Vis-a-vis Evil is signified by hurting others and enjoying it.
Law...following the rules...
Chaos...breaking the rules...
So he cares for others (Good) while breaking the rules when necessary (Neutral). Yeah?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system is a cornerstone of the game system since 1st edition. It is indeed, hardwired into the game, now even more than then.
That said, lots of people dislike it and have houseruled it out of their own games, which takes some work, but is doable.
Personally, I like alignments, if used correctly as roleplaying aids, rather than straightjackets. I like having a black and white world where its relatively easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and the bad guys are Evil with a capital E, so you can feel particularly good about yourself when you kick their ass. Is it realistic? Not in the least. But neither are dragons and magic.
I've long thought that moral clarity was a big part of the appeal of D&D, and perhaps of the heroic fantasy genre as a whole. Unlike real life, in which things are almost always murky, D&D is relatively easy on the brain: Of course there is neutral, but the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. I've assumed that the satisfaction of a simple moral calculus is part of the escapist appeal for many people.
My typical observation of alignment rejection is that people want to modify their characters' beliefs situationally. That, of course, is what alignment is meant to prevent, so I admittedly lack empathy.
I agree completely. I've had players perform X action then conveniently be Y alignment when it suits them. And should I call them on it, they become defensive and throw the entire session off kilter.
To quote Kaftorim:
They're too limiting and they don't tell you enough about your character to be a useful roleplaying tool because they are abstract and there are too few of them.
So is the system too limiting or not limiting enough? More options/a 3rd axis would do nothing but pigeon-hole a character and not give them room to flex their morality muscles. More = less.
The alignment system is simple because it covers everything. It doesn't matter who or what a character is, they WILL fit within the given system. Any finer details, be they: virtues, vices, traits, or personality quirks all fall under role-playing.
As a side note, I will admit that I liked the 4th ed Unaligned option. I felt that it provided a suitable "easy button" for those who simply don't care about anyone but themselves or are unwilling to fully explore their character's morality.
TL;DR - I like the alignment system as is and I feel that most complaints against it are the result of laziness/an inability to adapt.
-Kurocyn
If there were a third axis added in to allow for another set of options (that would be 18 more options than the current system, for a total of 27 different philosophies of life), it might begin to feel more relevant and up-to-date.
I'm not sure what that third axis would be, but that's because we've addressed the whole thing with a house ruled set of virtues and vices that allows for more than a thousand different permutations based on every character having to choose a major and minor virtue and vice from a list of roughly 20 each. For example, a character might have fidelity (loyalty) and charity (generosity) as his virtues and deceit and wrath for his vices. He is loyal to his own and takes care of the needs of the oppressed, but he's hot headed and willing to lie to get to those ends. What alignment is that?
Interesting idea. A possibility for a third axis might be severity--perhaps, say, something like Dedicated (up to and including fanatical), Neutral and Restrained (down to and including total apathy.) This could represent just how much your character attempts to embody the alignment in question. A Paladin would likely need to be Dedicated Lawful Good while the Rogue who tries to do the right thing but bends the rules in the process might be a Neutral or Restrained Chaotic Good. It's not a perfect idea, since it gauges extent of alignment instead and could be difficult to adapt to what sort of actions a character considers acceptable or not.
Actually that's an interesting idea, Ultrace. If we were going to keep alignment, I'd probably try it out, as it does actually add a little bit more dynamic to the whole idea.
As far as more clearly defined pigeon holes being more limiting, I don't think many creative types would agree with that. I've studied musical composition extensively (I have an MM in it) and along the way worked with some great artists, playwrights and other dramatists, poets, and choreographers/dancers. I can tell you that having clearly defined parameters can often lead to creativity, not diminish it. Trying to summarise the entirety of human (and non-human) philosophy into nine boxes is not a great system.
Part of the issue here is that what constitutes good and evil is not so clearly defined. It often forces the idea of Judeo-Christian morality onto a game that is generally pagan in religious view. The truth of the matter is that if the religions defined in most settings actually operated under a pagan understanding, they would all practise human sacrifice on some level or another. It was Judaism that forbade it, and only the religions that came out of Judaism that saw it as an evil, with perhaps a few small exceptions, although I cannot think of any.
In light of that, alignment can be too specific and not specific enough at the same time. It's too specific because it tries to bind all of the possible religious/philosophical ideas of the universe into one of nine options and then not specific enough because those nine options are, as a result, nearly meaningless.
Ultimately the better option would probably be to incorporate alignment into the religions, so that each of the nine alignments were given descriptive measures as they apply to any given religious view. In real life terms, a Lawful Good Tibetan Buddhist and a Lawful Good Orthodox Jew would simply not think or act the same way. They might have some overlap, but the ways that some Buddhists legally and religiously deal with dead corpses would be considered vile and corrupt to the Jew.
I'm sure that's not a problem if you are not delving into complex moral issues in your games, but those of us that do often run into the problem that alignment is just not well-suited for this. It comes out of a system where non-humans didn't get classes and there were virtually no non-combat skills. In first edition, the things that happened outside of the dungeon were only to help you to get into the dungeon. If that's still how you play, then there's no need to update alignment because it will function the way that it's supposed to. If you want to make full use of social skills and all of the other things that have been introduced to RPGs since first edition, then alignment becomes problematic.
Part of the issue here is that what constitutes good and evil is not so clearly defined. It often forces the idea of Judeo-Christian morality onto a game that is generally pagan in religious view. The truth of the matter is that if the religions defined in most settings actually operated under a pagan understanding, they would all practise human sacrifice on some level or another. It was Judaism that forbade it, and only the religions that came out of Judaism that saw it as an evil, with perhaps a few small exceptions, although I cannot think of any.
Religion, alignment and morality in the game are neither Judeo-Christian nor Pagan. They are Make Believe. They have no significant foundation in the real world, and come entirely from the fevered brains of the various writer/developers over time. Kind of like Scientology (sorry, couldn't resist). Seriously, let's not overthink this. Alignment, pseudo-religion and morality in the game are designed purely to enhance an enjoyable game. If you find they aren't enhancing yours, ditch them. They do enhance mine, so I'll keep them.
|
|
nWoD rates you on the standard acceptable actions for your species, using a scale of 0-10.
0 represents someone forsaking anything resembling the common ethos of their species, and is regarded by the game system as an unplayable madman: turn your sheet into your GM. To drop to this level, you virtually have to be playing someone who is a genocidal socio-path that would shoot the person walking the opposite direction on the street just because.
10 represents the absolute pinnacle of moral and ethical thought for your species, a state of grace from which it is ridiculously easy to fall.
Taken in a larger scope in WoD, the above is simply one of many paths that a vampire can follow, specifically, the path of Humanity.
Alternate paths do exist, some of which both bear little resemblance to human morality while at the same time being even more demanding in their own strictures.
I've also offered up my thoughts on this in another thread, but this one actually looks like a more appropriate one.
I like the alignment system and the drama it can be used to create. I also think that each GM should determine what the objective standards for Good/Evil, Law/Chaos should be for his or her game and make sure the players understand these standards.
I have also used a point system to enforce this. I assign drift points when characters perform acts that are not in line with their declared alignment and if they get 10 or more and do not negate those drift points with countervailing actions, they their alignment shifts one place (and the drift points are erased).
If anyone is interested, here is a link to an explanation of how I use this system, define alignments, and how many drift points one will get for particular acts (and in what direction):
http://gutwrenchingrpg.org/atss/docs/2011/08/03/alignment-infraction-system /
In the game that I had been running (and someday hope to run again) I found that this alignment drift house rule system really helped keep characters in line and kept the players mindful of the moral and ethical import of their actions. This system also prevented a lot of lame rationalizations because everyone understood from the beginning what the standards were.
|
|
I've long thought that moral clarity was a big part of the appeal of D&D, and perhaps of the heroic fantasy genre as a whole. Unlike real life, in which things are almost always murky, D&D is relatively easy on the brain: Of course there is neutral, but the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. I've assumed that the satisfaction of a simple moral calculus is part of the escapist appeal for many people.
I do love the clarity of high fantasy. In the real world, two warring factions are almost always at fault and the partisan vitriol spewing from both sides is a lugubrious monument to man's inability to compromise.
In D&D/PF, evil characters and races are gleefully so; all of them committing to general heinousness like a theater major to his first walk-on role for an episode of Glee.
But on the other hand, I also enjoy throwing Grey/Grey morality into the mix in a lot of my campaigns simply for the fact that it can be far too obvious what to do otherwise. I prefer not every adventure be, "Go to X and kill Y," but when you have a party of do-gooders quite aware of what races are Always Chaotic Evil it always seems to lead to that.
Religion, alignment and morality in the game are neither Judeo-Christian nor Pagan. They are Make Believe. They have no significant foundation in the real world, and come entirely from the fevered brains of the various writer/developers over time. Kind of like Scientology (sorry, couldn't resist). Seriously, let's not overthink this. Alignment, pseudo-religion and morality in the game are designed purely to enhance an enjoyable game. If you find they aren't enhancing yours, ditch them. They do enhance mine, so I'll keep them.
I'm glad they help you; they detract from our games to the point that we stopped using them years ago because it's hard to make them feel real. But I'd like to point out that the origins of alignment and the deity system do have significant foundations in the real world. Tolkien created the Lord of the Rings to spread his Catholic faith. This is well documented. Gygax created the game so that people could play Lord of the Rings. It brought many things over with it, including this Tolkien-esque morality system. As the game developed, many deities and even a saint from the real world were brought into the fold as deities in various books and settings. They may not be in the Pathfinder setting right now, but the Pathfinder rules are--as the designers said--intended to be setting-neutral to allow for a variety of settings. Let's not pretend that the real world wasn't a major influence on the game settings, or that the origin of all of this wasn't a series of books written to convert people. Alignment cuts to the heart of that issue, which is why I'd like to see some alternate options where alignment wasn't written into the system as strongly so that we can play a game that isn't about heroes and villains, but about characters that are complex people.