Roy Wagner |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like alignment and usually reduce it's impact on my games because players get weird ideas about it that often prevent interesting things happening with character development or roleplaying. I get that a lot of other people like it though. I can see how for some it acts as a focal point for character ideas and some classes base their existence around it.
What if instead of mandatory alignment it was replaced with a concept called codes or oaths? By default everyone is unaligned but some characters choose to follow certain codes wherein they gain benefits (god given I guess) if they follow them and penalties if they deviate.
As a starting point these codes could be all the alignments (lawful good etc) but also a hell of a lot more interesting and varied concepts.
This system doesn't minimize or abstract the existing alignments away like 4th ed did and it doesn't force alignment on players who don't like it.
Thoughts?
Dasrak |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played with a lot of variations with alignment over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that most alignment issues fundamentally fall into two categories:
1) People have different ideas of what is good/evil, and having a cosmically-enforced ethos that substantially disagrees with their own outlook is aggravating. By and large this problem doesn't exist with law/chaos; disagreeing on what it means to be lawful just doesn't get the same emotional energy as disagreeing over what it means to be good.
2) Alignment represents both a moral outlook and a cosmic force. When these two are in alignment (no pun in tended) there are no problems. However, there's nothing to prevent them from diverging; the most common example that comes up is the heroic necromancer who animates the dead and pursues otherwise heroic deeds with them.
The difficulty is that anything that seeks to address these problems strikes at the very heart of what alignment is, and that's a sacred cow for way too many people. Moreover, notice how my second point is that alignment is both a moral outlook and cosmic force: any real solution needs to decouple that, or have one take precedence over the other. Good lucky getting anyone to agree on how that should be done.
The homebrew I'm using right now has alignment exclusively as a cosmic force (with good and evil renamed to holy and unholy respectively). Alignment is now a class feature, with most characters being true neutral. Since alignment is now connected to conduct only insofar as class-based codes of conduct are concerned, that moots the whole good vs evil argument. This change required relatively few modifications to the mechanical rules (basically just Paladin Smite) and has allowed me to pursue narratives that just don't work under conventional rules, such as zealot extremist paladins as adversaries. I'm quite happy with this approach and have no plans on going back, but I don't think it would work for everybody.
ulgulanoth |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that replacing alignments with codes would actually work a lot better, mostly because every time I play a lawful character I have to make the codes they live by from scratch anyway, and I have had to make the moral codes for some of my non-lawful characters too. Changing alignments to codes also allows for the introduction of a Motivation for the character, something that makes their world make sense or something they live by. Which I think tends to be ignored by many players and leads to the murder hobo trope.
Igwilly |
I greatly approve the idea.
It simultaneously allows for classic aligned classes to remain with the same psyche they always had as also allowing the concept to remain quite secondary if the GM/players so wishes - or even not get into their game. It would take more work, but it would be greatly flavorful.
Milo v3 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remove Alignment, don't replace it. Don't put anything to fit it's role... since it isn't necessary to begin with and codes doesn't actually add anything to the game.
But any of this has already been jossed, since the setting isn't getting it's cosmology changed (which means it'll still need alignment), and apparently PF isn't setting neutral anymore so it only needs to care about whether it matches golarion.
Derry L. Zimeye |
Remove Alignment, don't replace it. Don't put anything to fit it's role... since it isn't necessary to begin with and codes doesn't actually add anything to the game.
But any of this has already been jossed, since the setting isn't getting it's cosmology changed (which means it'll still need alignment), and apparently PF isn't setting neutral anymore so it only needs to care about whether it matches golarion.
Just use the Remove Alignment tool from Unchained, my guy
Igwilly |
Just on a side note...
Whenever I think about the Outer Planes, in any D&D edition and Pathfinder, I don't like them focused on the alignment chart. I prefer that the planes are better remembered by their inhabitants. So Heaven is the home of archons, many angels, some deities, etc. while Hell is the domain of devils, hellish deities, and so on.
There would be no need for changes in the cosmology at all, but it would fit the (theoretical) new scheme of codes quite well.
Myrryr |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just on a side note...
Whenever I think about the Outer Planes, in any D&D edition and Pathfinder, I don't like them focused on the alignment chart. I prefer that the planes are better remembered by their inhabitants. So Heaven is the home of archons, many angels, some deities, etc. while Hell is the domain of devils, hellish deities, and so on.
There would be no need for changes in the cosmology at all, but it would fit the (theoretical) new scheme of codes quite well.
Doesn't fit magic however. Magic as a force of nature can be aligned, so you'd have to individually say what each evil, good, lawful or chaotic spell is now. And then there's alignment DR. Should a devil's DR only be bypassed by azata, or should mortals still have a way to do it by making their weapon 'good'?
Igwilly |
Igwilly wrote:Doesn't fit magic however. Magic as a force of nature can be aligned, so you'd have to individually say what each evil, good, lawful or chaotic spell is now. And then there's alignment DR. Should a devil's DR only be bypassed by azata, or should mortals still have a way to do it by making their weapon 'good'?Just on a side note...
Whenever I think about the Outer Planes, in any D&D edition and Pathfinder, I don't like them focused on the alignment chart. I prefer that the planes are better remembered by their inhabitants. So Heaven is the home of archons, many angels, some deities, etc. while Hell is the domain of devils, hellish deities, and so on.
There would be no need for changes in the cosmology at all, but it would fit the (theoretical) new scheme of codes quite well.
Those kind of rules changing should be reserved for when we're changing editions ;)
Honestly, terms like Holy, Unholy and such can well serve us here, although I would re-think Damage Resistance and Magic Resistance. Not eliminate them, by no means, no, but think a lot about what should change.
Dave Justus |
I prefer to think of alignment is 'formed a team with' not 'has this moral outlook'. If you give your allegiance to a supernatural entity, you become aligned with them. They may or may not require specific behavior depending on that, and being aligned should have benefits and drawbacks.
Obviously, this is not at all how Pathfinder has dealt with this but it is a better system I think, and I would like to see something similar, as it keeps some of the old concepts of alignment but opens things up.
Your personal morality (as long as there aren't specific behavioral requirements from something) shouldn't have a huge mechanical effect on you at all, except in reputation and relations with others. Having a public vow or oath that relates to that can, and should give benefits (everyone knows Sir Good has made a vow to help anyone in need, so people will trust him more, and as he lives up to this code that will continue to increase.) Obviously this sort of thing is difficult to put into a 'system' as there are tons of variables, but I think a good GM should take that sort of thing into account when considering initial reactions.
Kobold Boots |
I'm torn on this. I dislike how alignment has been used in the game but I don't think codes alone accomplish what is needed when you add lore.
If I had my preference the nature of someone's soul would be combined with as loose or as strict a code as the player desires.
Note that I am only using the term soul within the strictures of the cosmology, not the religion as it's another piece of lore that states that mortals can become immortal. Once mortals become gods that significantly changes the nature of faith and religion.
So the example I'd use is your character is either fundamentally good or evil and then you superimpose whatever lines you will or won't cross after that. I'd eliminate law and chaos as alignments and let codes determine rigidity one way or the other.
Just my preference. I run a game where order and chaos are more elemental and good and evil are more mortal concerns.
wraithstrike |
If they keep alignment then they need to be more direct about what it is. They were vague to allow people some freedom, but with the paladin(more than any other class) built around it, it's caused some problems.
As an example, and no I'm not suggesting these are to be used. They are just example so we would know where our characters fit in the world.
Good: Will kill when necessary, but would really prefer not to. Would take the difficult path to success over the easy one even if his/her life is in danger.
Evil: The results justify the means. Even when they have good intentions they will do whatever is needed to get the job done.
If option A has them sacrifice a village to send a demon away or fight through minions to kill they village will die.
Neutral: They are not really for or against anyone. They don't want to harm anyone and they often adventure more for money or to protect someone they care about than to defend others
That way when you slaughter a bunch of innocents you can't say "but it was the lesser of two evils".
PS: As for the paladins their code should allow them to not fall when they are put into a situation where both choices would break the code. The deity understands. That will help the players when it comes to "gotcha" GM's.
Threeshades |
Honestly I think alignment is a part of the game that can be safely jettisoned without replacement.
While you can still have it as a part of the cosmology with the alignment-based planes, but i don't think its needed for any creature that is not from one of these planes. Especially not player characters. Having no alignment written down on your character sheets means that no one can be tempted into telling you what your character would and would not do and allow for much more interesting roleplay.
When it comes to alignment-based abilities, we can take a page out of 5e and just replace the effect with affecting certain creature types rather than alignment or just ignore the stipulation that the alignment system put on it altogether (like smite evil/divine smite).
Mudfoot |
Codes for mortals, alignment for outsiders. And instead of Good/Evil it should be Holy/Unholy. Paladins and priests might care about alignment, but nobody else really does until hit in the face by Unholy Blight.
Law/Chaos is a different one. I'm not sure we need it as an alignment, and it might work better as a taint, sort of like in Warhammer. Chaos is most obvious in Proteans, and Law as a thing (rather than mere order) doesn't get much of a look in.
I suspect this all runs a bit deeper than we'd like and might be hard to extract cleanly. But said extraction is worth it.
Felinus |
I think part of the problem with alignment is from preconceived notions as Dasrak noted, though not just on the tenants of alignments but also what the role/function of the alignment system is.
The only times I have had issues with the alignment system is when people insist that it is prescriptive not descriptive. It should be a role playing tool, informing your outlook; not something that shackles you to certain types of actions or behaviour. This is well noted in the rpg community and there are plenty of articles out there on how alignment can work. However there will always be people who insist on telling you how you should play your character or who use it to justify their own poor taste and bad behaviour.
Felinus |
I think part of the problem with alignment is from preconceived notions as Dasrak noted, though not just on the tenants of alignments but also what role/function of the alignment system.
The only times I have had issues with the alignment system is when people insist that it is prescriptive not descriptive. It should be a role playing tool, informing your outlook; not something that shackles you to certain types of actions or behaviour. This is well noted and there are plenty of articles out there on how alignment can work. However there will always be people who insist on telling you how you should play your character or who use it to justify their own poor taste and bad behaviour.
ChibiNyan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think Alignment is pretty important part of the game for people that are new to roleplaying. I'm sure you all know what every group without strong emphasis on RP becomes (Murderhobos), and it is at least some basic guideline for them. Alignment has been "softened" enough since it's roots that it is pretty harmless nowadays.
The characters affected by alignment (Cleric, Paladin and their kin) are the ones that really make sense to have it. There is an implied "code of conduct" on a deity's alignment that helps distinguish clerics and make them special and unique.
Not to mention the entire planar cosmology stuff relies a lot on it. It's solidly ingrained in Golarion lore. People might not even see any different betwen all the fiends and celestials otherwise.
TheFlyingPhoton |
5e and Starfinder both (essentially) jettisoned alignment, so I would like P2 to embrace and reinforce alignment - things like alignment-based attacks have full effect on creatures that aren't the alignment of the effect's descriptor (Holy Smite does full damage to neutrals, all non-goods take negative levels holding Holy weapons) and buffs can only be cast on creatures that are the alignment of the spell's descriptor (Prot vs Evil only works on good creatures).
Derry L. Zimeye |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think replacing alignment would do is making GMing Adventure Paths harder. Having that quick alignment reference beside the NPC's stats make role-playing them so much easier. The easiest example was one adventure I played where most of the town was part of an evil cult, and were LE- and then there were a few who weren't, who were LN. Having that distinction allowed me to play up who was outwardly hostile to the strangers in town and those who weren't. I'd like to see Alignment stay, if only as a guide for GMs playing NPCs in order to get a fast idea of their morals on the fly.
Todd Stewart Contributor |
Davia D |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Todd Stewart. It's fairly baked into the setting and I *luv* the planar stuff. The Hellknights serving five lawful gods across good, neutral, and evil is great setting stuff too.
I will say:
Make it clear in the main book alignments aren't personality types, OCD doesn't make you lawful/being scatterbrained does not make you chaotic. People of certain personalities can *tend* one way, but they're different things. This is probably the biggest play problem.
Also make it clear that what a person's code is matters. If a person has a code that says it's ok to depose leaderships in revolutionary mobs, well, then they probably isn't too lawful. In short, 'has a code =/= automatically lawful,' a code is just a person's personal description.
Don't tie alignment to class unless it involves working for a specific ideology. An organization can be tied to class, but a lawful bard/chaotic monk is fine. This might mean you may be a former member of X, but only stuff like spell-granting clerical classes or paladins should be alignment tied- and even then, I say switching gods or such is fine, fallen paladin options, etc..
Rysky |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like alignment. I want it to stay. Outsiders that are native to the outer planes and are literally physical manifestations of their alignment want alignment to stay.
Seconded so very much. Alignment is one of the most appealing things to me about this (or any other) game system.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like alignment.
I don’t like the implication that a race (or ancestry) has any biological imperative towards a single alignment.
I’d like to see Kobolds who venerate metallic dragons, Orcs who have shed their violent pasts, goblins who want something better for their people than their self-destructive theft/raider culture.
I’d like to see Chromatic Dragons who aren’t restricted to a single alignment due to their colour. A neutral Green Dragon who protects her forest because she was convinved of the need by the local Druid, a metallic dragon who hasn’t tarnished due to their disappointment with shortsighted mortals.
Let’s remove the judgemental baggage, and really focus on alignments on an individual basis rather than judge entire ancestries as a whole.
sadie |
I like this idea. And I'm fairly certain Paizo won't go for it.
The biggest problem that I see resulting from alignment is that it's taken as a shorthand excuse for lazy thinking and horrible behaviour. "Orcs are evil, so I'm going to go kill them all." Alignment makes players think that the world is black and white. Experienced players like us all know that's not how alignment is supposed to work, but the simplicity of it means it's often abused like that.
For example, I've lost count of the number of times as GM that I've had to explain that the Detect Evil ability doesn't detect minor, ordinary levels of evil. "No, the shopkeeper is not an elder demon from hell. She does not detect as evil. Or chaotic or lawful or good. Or, before you ask, undead." The mechanical uses of alignment always felt out of place in a nuanced roleplaying game.
Replacing them with Codes is an opportunity to give characters much greater depth. As well as the nine aligned codes, you can have codes representing. If you need to keep alignments around, have alignments on codes themselves. Some, like the core 9, would have a set alignment; others would have alignment restrictions. Eg "The Samurai's code may have any lawful alignment." But the alignment is on the Code, not on the character.
For example, some of the Mythic paths smell a lot like codes to me:
Champion: Inspire your people to be better by being better. Lead them to victory through your example.
Guardian: Protect the innocent, even at cost to yourself.
Hierophant: Be the living will of your deity.
Marshal: Through leadership, courage and cunning, make all around you better.
Similarly, the Oathbound Paladin had something very much like a code. Each Oath described first their vow; second some specific restrictions; and third some themed benefits they got from the oath. These abilities were not large (maybe 1 to 1.5 feats in total?), but they were flavourful; and breaking your oath would mean losing them.
My usual way of playing alignment is to leave it blank until level 2 or 3, by which point my character's personality and inclinations have become clear through roleplay. The same delay could be baked into Codes:
At level three, your character chooses a Code, which represents their moral alignment, philosophy and outlook. Codes grant them certain abilities, but also require adherence to the precepts of that code.
If your character repeatedly breaks those Code's precepts, they may be required to choose a new Code. The choice of whether a new code is required is at the GM's discretion.
I doubt Paizo would do this, though, because alignment is baked into their pantheon and cosmology. There are ways around this, but I don't think they'll do them.
amethal |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think replacing alignment would do is making GMing Adventure Paths harder. Having that quick alignment reference beside the NPC's stats make role-playing them so much easier. The easiest example was one adventure I played where most of the town was part of an evil cult, and were LE- and then there were a few who weren't, who were LN. Having that distinction allowed me to play up who was outwardly hostile to the strangers in town and those who weren't.
I'm not sure there is anything in the alignment rules that states LE people are any more (or less) outwardly hostile to strangers than LN people are.
In your example, the same result could be obtained by marking NPCs as "cultist" or "non-cultist", which seems to me to be pretty important information in any case.
I'd like to see Alignment stay, if only as a guide for GMs playing NPCs in order to get a fast idea of their morals on the fly.
This I do agree with. I hate alignment with a passion, but quite often "NE" in the stat block tells me a lot more about an NPC than a list of vague (and possibly contradictory) character traits would.
Kalindlara Contributor |
amethal |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem that I see resulting from alignment is that it's taken as a shorthand excuse for lazy thinking and horrible behaviour. "Orcs are evil, so I'm going to go kill them all." Alignment makes players think that the world is black and white. Experienced players like us all know that's not how alignment is supposed to work, but the simplicity of it means it's often abused like that.
That's exactly how alignment is supposed to work.
Traditional published D&D / Pathfinder adventures involve horrible people doing horrible things - invading homes, slaughtering everybody they meet and stealing everything that isn't nailed down.
But it is okay because the victims were (probably) evil.
Also, if you don't kill them and take their stuff you won't find the convenient piece of paper that leads you to the next bunch of people you need to kill.
Skedge |
I think the issue is people tend to view alignment as a rigid structure. I have always viewed is a characters general outlook. For example a Good aligned character will tend to help when possible. A law abiding character will generally make a good faith attempt to follow the laws of the land etc. I never force rigid structures around alignment.
I fit Paladins into the outlook, by having them actually be the alignment of their god rather than enforcing LG. It makes more sense to me this way, all religions then have their religious warriors. I just alter abilities based on alignment like a clerics channel ability.
The Thing From Another World |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment as Cosmic Force has to stay. To define your personality, not really. But characters should get an alignment "label" on them based on clear guidelines... It should not be open to interpretation that much if it is somemething so fundamental to the universe.
Agreed and seconded.
Threeshades |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think precisely because the nine alignments are so fundamental to the cosmology it shouldn't be a part that has to be frontloaded onto the character. Mortals are the ones who literally live in the middle of this cosmic octagon and have to find their way in between these forces. That in my opinion makes it so much more sensible and interesting to not have them predefined on the spectrum.
The Thing From Another World |
No please dont tell players what their characters can and cant do based on alignment. I dont see how that will help at all. Honestly, the current implementation is very easy to ignore with the exception of a few cases (Paladin).
If the only solution is to tell others to ignore it then why if the alignment system in the first place. Just tell players to act in whatever way they want their characters to act.
I say have a codified alignment system on what a character can or cannot do. Yet also give the option to players to use the old system if they choose. Alignment has been a very problematic element of the system since first edition. I see no reason that we cannot try and fix it.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
1) People have different ideas of what is good/evil,
To my mind, this is not a bug. This is a feature.
and having a cosmically-enforced ethos that substantially disagrees with their own outlook is aggravating.
One person's aggravating is another person's grounds for interesting roleplay. (I admit, I may be biased here because the notion of playing a character whose general moral outlook is the same as the player's seems a) utterly unrealistic for worlds as different as Golarion and RL and b) incredibly boring roleplaying.)
It's not as if the cosmos enforcing unfair stuff whether one likes it or not is a thing that can be avoided in real life.
Isaac Zephyr |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with alignment more as a roleplaying tool. Divorcing it from mechanics in terms of things like class restrictions is my preferred way to go.
I have a Chaotic Good Vigilante. She is such because she values even the lives of her enemies. She avoids killing, instead preferring to turn defeated criminals over to justice. That is slightly lawful in description, but she tends to work outside the law, wearing a mask, buying and using poisons and other black market tools, so she ers to chaos over order.
I had a Lawful Evil Gunslinger. She was so because her end goal was to rescue her sister, and she was willing to do whatever it took to accomplish that go. She would torture for information, gun down her bounties without remorse... These are evil acts, but her end goal was good.
Roleplaying tool. I also don't mind the evil descriptor on some feats. Blood Drinker for Dhampirs is evil. Doing so is an evil thing, you can use evil for good, but it is still doing evil. If you are okay and want to play a character the world sees as evil, that is a unique roleplaying experience.
Morality I think needs to be a part of the game, though I agree in divorcing it from mechanics. I've played many roleplaying systems and I think my favorite wasn't persay "codes" (which I think of more similarly to Palladium's alignments), but actually the World of Darkness/Scion system. You have a series of Vitrues which are what you stand for, and a Vice/Nature, which is your flaw. They have mechanical functions in WoD/Scion but they are mostly a roleplaying tool.
5e kept alignment as a guideline, but you're making an in depth character by picking them 2 personality traits, an ideal, a bond and a flaw. I'm not saying to copy that system, but PF2 appears to be going the background route as well, and having a more unique morality system based on that I think may be more fun, making each character unique based on their experience not where they fall on a grid.
The Thing From Another World |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Against. Keep alignment as it is.
This is one of the few things that bothers me about the D&D fanabase they do not want fix the rules that causes issues at the table. Yet they also keep complaining about the same issues. We can't have it both ways imo. Complain that alignment is a problem yet when offered a opportunity to try and fix it refuse to do so. Telling people to ignore it while a valid suggestion is a poor fix imo.
Planpanther |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Planpanther wrote:No please dont tell players what their characters can and cant do based on alignment. I dont see how that will help at all. Honestly, the current implementation is very easy to ignore with the exception of a few cases (Paladin).If the only solution is to tell others to ignore it then why if the alignment system in the first place. Just tell players to act in whatever way they want their characters to act.
I say have a codified alignment system on what a character can or cannot do. Yet also give the option to players to use the old system if they choose. Alignment has been a very problematic element of the system since first edition. I see no reason that we cannot try and fix it.
You know what? Forget it lets just get rid of alignment and not make it much much worse than it already is. Codes should be limited to specific classes, preferable prestige classes. IMHO.
Planpanther |
magnuskn wrote:Against. Keep alignment as it is.This is one of the few things that bothers me about the D&D fanabase they do not want fix the rules that causes issues at the table. Yet they also keep complaining about the same issues. We can't have it both ways imo. Complain that alignment is a problem yet when offered a opportunity to try and fix it refuse to do so. Telling people to ignore it while a valid suggestion is a poor fix imo.
Your problem is your problem, and your fix is your fix. There is no solution for everyone.
The Thing From Another World |
You know what? Forget it lets just get rid of alignment and not make it much much worse than it already is. Codes should be limited to specific classes, preferable prestige classes. IMHO.
I think alignment should stay. It need to be developed further in that it causes less trouble at gaming tables. Or at the very least keep it yet don't tie it so much to classes. Nothing kills fun for a player or even a group if a DM for example makes a Paladin fall for attacking a powerful enemy under the cover of darkness.
Again keep it , update it so it's a helpful though not rigidly followed tool pf the rpg.
Your problem is your problem, and your fix is your fix. There is no solution for everyone.
I never claimed my fix was the ultimate solution for everyone. Afer all is this section of the forums nothing but people offering their fixes to the new rules as a possible fix to them.
It does not reflect well on us as a fanbase where we keep complaining about the same issues with the rules, then when offered a chance to fix them refuse to do so. It's like the diabetic person who keeps eating foods heavy in sugar ignoring any advice to do the opposite yet keeps complaining about declining health because their health is getting worse as the diabetes gets worse.
It needs to be said and I include myself as one we kind of comes across hypocrites in the hobby. We are not the only ones resistant to change in rpgs to be fair yet we are the biggest fanbase in rpgs