Alignment (sorry!) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment (sorry!) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
FlameLover
08-13-06, 10:17 PM Ok I wanted to get peoples opinions on the alignment system we've just started using in a new campaign. It's a relativley minor set of changes, but they should help things a bit.

The basis of the idea is as follows: alignment no longer exists. Instead, creatures have Alignment Sub-Types: eg. Good, Evil, Chaotic, or Lawful.

For example, say you get a Cleric of Pelor. Instead of having an alignment, they gain the Good subtype because of their connection to a Neutral Good deity.

Similarly, a Paladin's Smite ability only works on creatures with the "Evil" sub-type.

If you would gain two opposing sub-types, you must choose which you get. Whatever you pick remains until another source would give you the opposing sub-type, at which point you must pick again.

The point of this is to remain alignments mechanically in the system, but to divorce their influence from most characters. The only classes that require or give sub-types are Cleric and Paladin, not counting PrCs such as the Blackguard.

The main concern is if the benefits of having an alignment subtype out-weigh those of not having one, and vice versa. Being Good makes you more vulnerable to several evil effects, but it also grants you exclusive access to things that hurt evil more. I haven't probably described it very well, but I hope I gave the general idea about it.

EDIT: Corrected a typo.
pres_man
08-13-06, 11:44 PM Am I understanding you right, basically you are having people still pick an alignment, but they are not required to act within that alignment in any fashion (paladin can spend his off days putting babies on pikes)? Frankly just dump the whole mechanic if that is what you mean.
FlameLover
08-14-06, 01:01 AM That's not what I meant, sorry I didn't explain it better.

You never "pick" an alignment, you gain one through race/class/feat, etc. Often the source of this alignment sub-type also only benefits someone with that given sub-type. ie. a Paladin gains the Good and Lawful sub-types when they enter the Paladin class, and the Paladin class only gives a benefit to someone with those sub-types.

You don't lose a sub-type through most actions though, an alignment sub-type represents a connection/pact/etc. with a higher being (deity, demonic lord, etc.) Thus if the only requirment of being a paladin was their alignment, then they could by piking babies heads on their days off. But luckily there is still the Paladin's Code, which now has a much deeper meaning.

A Paladin who does stuff like you mentioned is kicked out because of the code, not because of alignment. The point of alignment with this house rule is to make it more important and definable. It doesn't matter how "evil" someone acts, they only gain the evil sub-type when they make contact with evil powers (nearly always outsiders).

Same restrictions apply to Clerics, Druids, etc. They are all bound by a separate code to just alignment, so it won't change how they function much. Does it make sense now?
pres_man
08-14-06, 08:02 AM Why not just dump the alignments then and only apply codes of conduct? I mean, I just find it somewhat disturbing for someone to claim to be a devoted follower of Pelor (cleric), and yet act in ways that are contradictory of Pelor's motives, but you are ok because you haven't had tea with a fiend yet.
FlameLover
08-15-06, 08:15 PM Well, it makes sense to me. People say one thing and do another all the time. Many religious texts promote peace, yet there followers often go out to slay unbeleivers in the name of there god. People will do what they want when it comes down to it, then they'll try to justify it to themselves or others depending on the situation. That's a generalisation ofcourse - the large majority of people say and do about the same thing it's just that you don't HAVE to do what you say.

I may say that I worship Nerul, but then I go and save some kids lives from a serial killer. What I did doesn't make sense because I said I follow Nerul, yet it makes perfect sense if I don't truly beleive those teachings. The only time you have to do and say the same thing is if you're a cleric, because you get power from your deity FOR following them.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FlameLover 08-13-06, 10:17 PM	Ok I wanted to get peoples opinions on the alignment system we've just started using in a new campaign. It's a relativley minor set of changes, but they should help things a bit. The basis of the idea is as follows: alignment no longer exists. Instead, creatures have Alignment Sub-Types: eg. Good, Evil, Chaotic, or Lawful. For example, say you get a Cleric of Pelor. Instead of having an alignment, they gain the Good subtype because of their connection to a Neutral Good deity. Similarly, a Paladin's Smite ability only works on creatures with the "Evil" sub-type. If you would gain two opposing sub-types, you must choose which you get. Whatever you pick remains until another source would give you the opposing sub-type, at which point you must pick again. The point of this is to remain alignments mechanically in the system, but to divorce their influence from most characters. The only classes that require or give sub-types are Cleric and Paladin, not counting PrCs such as the Blackguard. The main concern is if the benefits of having an alignment subtype out-weigh those of not having one, and vice versa. Being Good makes you more vulnerable to several evil effects, but it also grants you exclusive access to things that hurt evil more. I haven't probably described it very well, but I hope I gave the general idea about it. EDIT: Corrected a typo.
pres_man 08-13-06, 11:44 PM	Am I understanding you right, basically you are having people still pick an alignment, but they are not required to act within that alignment in any fashion (paladin can spend his off days putting babies on pikes)? Frankly just dump the whole mechanic if that is what you mean.
FlameLover 08-14-06, 01:01 AM	That's not what I meant, sorry I didn't explain it better. You never "pick" an alignment, you gain one through race/class/feat, etc. Often the source of this alignment sub-type also only benefits someone with that given sub-type. ie. a Paladin gains the Good and Lawful sub-types when they enter the Paladin class, and the Paladin class only gives a benefit to someone with those sub-types. You don't lose a sub-type through most actions though, an alignment sub-type represents a connection/pact/etc. with a higher being (deity, demonic lord, etc.) Thus if the only requirment of being a paladin was their alignment, then they could by piking babies heads on their days off. But luckily there is still the Paladin's Code, which now has a much deeper meaning. A Paladin who does stuff like you mentioned is kicked out because of the code, not because of alignment. The point of alignment with this house rule is to make it more important and definable. It doesn't matter how "evil" someone acts, they only gain the evil sub-type when they make contact with evil powers (nearly always outsiders). Same restrictions apply to Clerics, Druids, etc. They are all bound by a separate code to just alignment, so it won't change how they function much. Does it make sense now?
pres_man 08-14-06, 08:02 AM	Why not just dump the alignments then and only apply codes of conduct? I mean, I just find it somewhat disturbing for someone to claim to be a devoted follower of Pelor (cleric), and yet act in ways that are contradictory of Pelor's motives, but you are ok because you haven't had tea with a fiend yet.
FlameLover 08-15-06, 08:15 PM	Well, it makes sense to me. People say one thing and do another all the time. Many religious texts promote peace, yet there followers often go out to slay unbeleivers in the name of there god. People will do what they want when it comes down to it, then they'll try to justify it to themselves or others depending on the situation. That's a generalisation ofcourse - the large majority of people say and do about the same thing it's just that you don't HAVE to do what you say. I may say that I worship Nerul, but then I go and save some kids lives from a serial killer. What I did doesn't make sense because I said I follow Nerul, yet it makes perfect sense if I don't truly beleive those teachings. The only time you have to do and say the same thing is if you're a cleric, because you get power from your deity FOR following them.