Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jagggar 11-01-05, 12:30 AM	I'm one of those crazy people who just loves alignment. I don't really get why people want to drop it. Few notes: You're probably not going to change anyone's mind. What's written in the PHB/DMG/MM/etc. is not always right for the DM's campaign. Hopefully we can find some of the mechanics which make it difficult to drop alignment and come up with several ideas to 'fix' them. No matter how loud you shout, you're still probably not going to change anyone's mind. I don't really get why people drop alignment. For those of you who do (or would like to), please share/explain.
cere 11-01-05, 12:43 AM	I despise Alignment, not because of the way it is written or the purpose it is meant to have but more so because of the way that the common gamer (and MOST DMs) use it. Most DMs that I know like to use Alignment as a straightjacket to railroad your character into their predetermined path. THe words "your character wouldnt do that" should never be uttered by a DM or another player and most times that line is brought about due to what one person considers an alignment issue. I love Roleplaying and i think the human (or non-human) spirit will flirt thru ALL the alignments over the course of their lifetime, from the very noble to the very despicable, although their is that one TRUE alignment for them that will govern their heart.... Unfortunately most people dont agree with that and believe you should act the same in each and every situation due to the way they interpret "alignment"
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-05, 12:54 AM	Drop. Its more trouble than its worth to me and it gets in the way of delicious plot. Not to mention that in my campaign setting, the people could care less about each other's philosopihcal outlook because of the fact nature is fully capable of killing them all much faster than some dork in black armor.
caeruleus 11-01-05, 01:49 AM	I'm happy with it, and I'd be happy without it. One reason I sometimes like to do without alignment is that (whatever you might think is the case in the real world) it can be fun to play in a world where morals are not objective. This is good for trying to get an amoral swords and sorcery feel to your campaign (think R. E. Howard's Conan tales). Individual characters can still act with the belief that morals are objective, they just won't have effects in game mechanic terms. In such cases, I like to replace detect evil with the psionic power detect hostile intent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/detectHostileIntent.htm), and make other similar changes. But it can also be interesting to play in a world where they are objective. THe words "your character wouldnt do that" should never be uttered by a DM or another player and most times that line is brought about due to what one person considers an alignment issue. I think it would be more appropriate to watch a PC's behaviour over time, and perhaps say, "No, you're not that alignment, you're this alignment, given how you've been behaving. That's why you're registering when they cast the detect <whatever> spell." I agree that alignment should not get in the way of roleplaying, but it's still appropriate (if morals are objective in the game world) to make sure that alignment and actions match. You're right that telling someone they can't do what they want to do is problematic, as is the assumption that having an alignment determines precisely how you will act in any given situation.
Millennium 11-01-05, 08:13 AM	From a mechanical standpoint, dropping alignment is a Very Bad Idea: it's too integrated into the core mechanics. It can be done, but not without patching the holes with so many houserules that it would be far less effort to just learn another RPG system and be done with it.
TúrintheMormegil 11-01-05, 09:41 AM	For my campaign setting, I have dropped alignment. This was done to remove an element of objectiveness to the moral aspects of roleplaying. I found alignment-debates (that invariably occur at some point in most D&D-campaigns I have played in) to be more trouble than creating a few houserules that fit my setting and get rid of alignment. As I aim for lots of roleplaying, intrigue and politics, alignment would just be in the way. It makes it too easy to determine who is right and who is wrong, and I find it slightly restricting (I know it isn't meant to work that way, but I know it does for me and quite a few of the players I know) when I create NPCs. Not having to pidgeonhole them into an alignment after creation or having to work with a predetermined concept just annoyed me. An important reason for me personally to have no regrets about dropping alignment was that none of my players cared for it. Some made clear they would still use alignment as a guideline for character creation, others actually felt some relief. In my setting, removing alignment also removes the argument some people make that good (as in good-aligned) organizations, nations and people wouldn't plot, scheme and fight against another. A strict view of alignment (that is, bordering on straitjacketing) would even support such reasoning. This encourages a good vs. evil world (with a few neutrals in the middle) because the alliance of all good things means evil will have to ally as well to survive. My setting supports a large variety of groups with different interests that are all willing to fight for their ideals (verbally or otherwise) and that can ally or oppose each other for any reason without alignment standing in the way. Personally, I think removing alignment has enriched my world (though not very much, as I already interpreted alignment very loosely). I also agree with cere, except that I do no despise alignment: others' campaigns usually include it and I do not argue about this (though I frequently find it hard to slap an alignment-label on my own PCs). There's your explanation... don't forget to tell us why you DO use alignment! :tiphat: Túrin
weasel fierce 11-01-05, 02:06 PM	Alignments never added anything worthwhile to D&D in my opinion, and they feel like an archaic hold over from 1975. Hence, I dont put any stock in them.
NecromancerElf 11-01-05, 03:58 PM	Personally I have dropped alignment because I feel it puts too much of a moral fence into the game penning certain things into certain lines of thought and because my games good is in the eyes of the beholder I have dropped alignment.
Evil DM Mk3 11-01-05, 04:18 PM	If used correctly alignment can bring both richness and simplicity to the game. If used correctly And correctly is NOT the same all of the time. In my world alignement is intigrated deeply, but at a differant level. Your alignment is your true self, but howmany are in keeping with their true selves? There are evil people who toil for justice and try and fight their true selves, and good people who lift money from the till becasue they are weak willed. Only Outsiders, Fey, Paldins, Monks and the mindless/low int are truely in touch with their inner selves.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-01-05, 06:11 PM	From a mechanical standpoint, dropping alignment is a Very Bad Idea: it's too integrated into the core mechanics. It can be done, but not without patching the holes with so many houserules that it would be far less effort to just learn another RPG system and be done with it. Remove: Restrictions on Bard, Barbarian and Monk. Alignment Descriptors for spells Alignment Domains Replace to Taste: Paladin Detect/Circle/Word/Cloak spells Reorder: Alignment Subtypes Outer Planes Done.
FlameLover 11-01-05, 09:36 PM	For my RPG/CS Myrkwell (see sig) i'm removing alignment for the reasons stated above. I feel it adds nothing to the game where people can just "Detect Evil" on a government official to see if they should remain in office. It ruins so many good plot lines and yet tgives nothing back I feel. Instead I have replaced it with a Faction or Allegiance system. For every organization or group of people in the world you are one of 5 or 7 levels of friendly-ness (not sure how many yet though). So you might be Friendly with the Freecliff Wardens and all members of that group who recognize you would start with a Friendly attitude towards you. Ofcourse since most groups are in conflict with someone else to get in good with one group you often need to act against another meaning you'll probably be Hostile with atleast a few factions (which means a Kill-On-Sight mostly although not as rigid as in many MORPG) So while alignment adds little to the game I feel some sort of system for morality or allegiance should exist. NPC attitudes are an OK system though so applying them to groups makes sense to me.
caeruleus 11-01-05, 10:20 PM	I feel it adds nothing to the game where people can just "Detect Evil" on a government official to see if they should remain in office. It ruins so many good plot lines and yet tgives nothing back I feel. One idea I once had was to allow the detect/protection/etc, spells to work, but they only affect creatures with an alignment subtype. So a human, no matter how much he rapes, murders, lies, litters, etc, won't register on detect evil. That allows the spells to basically work without using it on any government official. (A fiend trying to get into a government office will probably use undetectable alignment anyway.)
Tyler Do'Urden 11-01-05, 10:44 PM	I like alignments. I like good and evil being clear designations. It simplifies things. But I could see why someone would want to get rid of it. The biggest reason I could think of to drop it is having a large number of players that aren't sure how each alignment should be roleplayed. Anything that's creating more problems than its solving should be removed. But in general, alignment doesn't cause problems in my groups. We all have roughly the same idea what evil and order are, so there aren't any disputes. Anybody new that isn't clear about it just plays chaotic neutral and we're fine. If you're playing a game that doesn't have magic or paladins, you can safely ditch alignment entirely.
weasel fierce 11-02-05, 12:26 AM	Let me add my usual thing.. you can run a campaign where alignments ar ecool. In a romantic fantasy setting like Dragonlance, having tangible good and evil can be a nice thing. In a Moorcock or Anderson world where Law and Chaos are in constant struggle, having alignments can be important and fitting as well.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-05, 12:33 AM	If you're playing a game that doesn't have magic or paladins, you can safely ditch alignment entirely. Its like 20 spells that are a problem, tops.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-02-05, 12:52 AM	Well I didn't say you couldn't ditch alignments if you did have magic, just that if you didn't have magic, ditching alignments will have no further effect on the game.
lostone 11-02-05, 09:40 AM	I just recently started thinking about this. Alignment has basically become a crutch in my group, resulting in near cookie-cutter personalities based on whatever alignment their character is and seasoned with whatever classes they are. So I'm thinking about dropping it for roleplaying. I'm undecided if we would still need to pay attention to it for the purposes of meeting prestige class and class requirements, that way we don't end up with a paladin/barbarian or paladin/warlock with a neutral prestige class. We would still pay attention to it for the evil/good/lawful/chaotic subtypes some monsters like Balors get. Those races would be locked into their normal alignments. But as far as roleplaying goes, people are often inconsistent in real life about alignments. They might be all lawful good one minute when they see someone get mugged or hear about a terrible murder, but as soon as they find out that somehow benefits them (maybe their boss gets murdered and they get promoted) then suddenly some people will see their alignment shifts towards neutral or even selfishness/evil. The average person's alignment shifts depending on the situation, their mood, current events in their life, etc. So I'd like to open up the possibilities in my game and get rid of alignment except for a few exceptions that are built into the mechanics, I just am not sure how far to take it.
Gilean 11-02-05, 09:40 AM	I like good and evil being clear designations. It simplifies things.This is the only thing alignments do. They do not facilite roleplaying, they are "kill this" and "be nice to this"-tags. That's why I dislike them.
caeruleus 11-02-05, 12:17 PM	I like good and evil being clear designations. It simplifies things. That simplifies things in the real world too. But it also comes with lots of dangers. ;)
WhtKnt 11-02-05, 12:49 PM	I've dropped alignment form my games, replacing it with Allegiances from d20 Modern and Taint from Unearthed Arcana. Why? Alignment is black and white. Real life, sadly, is not nearly so simple. By way of example: According to the SRD, "A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion." Okay, so now let us assume that a paladin has raided an orc lair and finds a nursery of orc females and children that beg for mercy. If the paladin kills these helpless individuals, is this an evil act? It would certainly seem to be. After all, the orcs aren't hurting anyone, are unarmed, and have asked quarter. And yet, if the paladin uses detect evil, it will almost certainly reveal that these are evil creatures which, according to the paladin's tenets, must be destroyed. So is letting them live an evil act by association, even though it demonstrates compassion? To complicate matters, let us take the same paladin faced with a quandry. Let's assume that she finds herself with a terrible choice to make. An evil sorcerer has the only means by which to banish a demon that threatens to destroy an entire kingdom. He is willing to aid the party in exchange for his freedom, but he also holds the inhabitants of a small village under his sway, treating them as virtual slaves. He asks the paladin to give her word that she will not harm him or interfere with him if he aids them against the fiend. If the paladin gives her word, she is committing an evil act by condemming the villagers to a life of slavery. On the other hand, the party has no hope of defeating the demon without the sorcerer's aid, and if she doesn't give her word, then the kingdom will almost certainly be destroyed and the lives of hundreds or thousands of people lost (and on her conscience). Could a lawful good character (even a paladin) in this instance could give her word to save the kingdom and then break it (probably without repercussion) to save the villagers as well? Certainly, but that sets a precedent that culminates in the question, "If you can make exceptions to your alignment, why use alignment at all?" Chaotic evil is described by the SRD thusly, " A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend." Does this mean that I cannot have a chaotic evil villain that is suave, sophisticated, and manipulative? Do all villains that twirl their waxed moustaches and cackle maniacally have to be lawful evil by design? Why couldn't I have a well-dressed, smooth-talking villain that would happily betray his friends to the wolves at the drop of a hat, yet with a warped sense of honor that prevents him from harming children? I've seen it stated a hundred times, "alignments are not straightjackets," and yet, that's exactly what they seem to be. They shoehorn characters into moral codes that limit the possibilities of role-playing. By adopting the Allegiances system from d20 Modern, I allow the characters to demonstrate loyalty to a belief, ethos, or group, while still letting them behave freely. A paladin who puts mercy first might allow the orcs in the first example to live, while one whose allegiance to his ideals is overriding might choose to slay them. The use of Taint from Unearthed Arcana insures that characters don't run rampant, doings terrible things without repercussions. They know that performing evil acts leads to bad things.
lostone 11-02-05, 01:19 PM	Okay, so now let us assume that a paladin has raided an orc lair and finds a nursery of orc females and children that beg for mercy. If the paladin kills these helpless individuals, is this an evil act? It would certainly seem to be. After all, the orcs aren't hurting anyone, are unarmed, and have asked quarter. And yet, if the paladin uses detect evil, it will almost certainly reveal that these are evil creatures which, according to the paladin's tenets, must be destroyed. So is letting them live an evil act by association, even though it demonstrates compassion?This is why Paladin's have allies. They can let the children live which is compassionate, and as soon as the Paladin leaves, the allies slaughter the kiddies. :P Besides, I think of Paladins as being much more black & white. Orc = evil, kill it. Orc baby = future evil, kill it, if it isn't killed now I'll just have to kill it later after it has hurt innocents. To complicate matters, let us take the same paladin faced with a quandry. Let's assume that she finds herself with a terrible choice to make. An evil sorcerer has the only means by which to banish a demon that threatens to destroy an entire kingdom. He is willing to aid the party in exchange for his freedom, but he also holds the inhabitants of a small village under his sway, treating them as virtual slaves. He asks the paladin to give her word that she will not harm him or interfere with him if he aids them against the fiend.So the Paladin gives their word that "I will not interfere". Then as soon as the Sorceror does their thing, the Paladin tells all their paladin buddies who go and free the slaves. The Paladin is not interfering, the buddies are. :P Just need to twist words like an Aes Sedai. Does this mean that I cannot have a chaotic evil villain that is suave, sophisticated, and manipulative? Do all villains that twirl their waxed moustaches and cackle maniacally have to be lawful evil by design? Why couldn't I have a well-dressed, smooth-talking villain that would happily betray his friends to the wolves at the drop of a hat, yet with a warped sense of honor that prevents him from harming children?A warped sense of honor would be lawful, he follows his own "code of personal laws".
jagggar 11-02-05, 01:30 PM	You can get a ring of undetectable alignment for as low as 2000 gp. Already wearing two rings? Get a slotless version for 4000 gp. I don't think it should be as simple as, "Detect Evil. Okay, you're out of a job." I see it more as, "How dare you accuse Lord Bay B. Kilar of being evil!!! I'm sorry, but you'll have to leave. Lord Kilar does not have time for scoundrles such as yourselves. He's much too busy making sure the villiage has enough food for the winter." Just because someone is evil doesn't mean it's a ticket out of office (which might not be an option depending on the country's government). Evil doesn't even mean you're going to mistreat your subjects. 'Sure, the spy from that nation over there is going to regret it big time. . . And if any one of those people over there even come near us. . . But my people are healthy, happy, and get mad at travelers telling them they need a new leader.' *evil grin* 'Oh yes, also, they all have Weapon Focus: Pitchfork.' I think you can paint a picture by changing up the rules based on alignment without dropping them. Remove the evil descriptor from the undead creating spells and drop the silliness of mindless creatures having a non-neutral alignment and it shouldn't be suprising to have good necromancers. Vaal, Slightly confused by what you mean by 'reorder'. And you left magic swords off your list (holy/unholy/ethical equiviances). What annoys me about the 20 or so spells is that most of them are the exact same spell. Then add in a few spells which don't have any core fluff* to say why they should be [Evil] (the undead spells again). *By 'core fluff' I mean the "soul immediately departs" thing. It would be very simple to add in a line or two about why a creature can't come back if its body has been turned into an undead.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-05, 02:23 PM	Vaal, Slightly confused by what you mean by 'reorder'. Change what they mean inthe world. Having a subtype doesn't mean that you're an avatar of that outset anylonger, but instead means your core makeup is fundamantally different from other creatures to the point that you are effected differently by, say, a holy weapon. And you left magic swords off your list (holy/unholy/ethical equiviances) That's because there are a LOT of different ways to go about fixing them. Currently I'm toying with making all weapons 'holy of God X' where they effect enemies of the church and things the god hates. But other methods exist, such as making them only effect subtyped creatures. What annoys me about the 20 or so spells is that most of them are the exact same spell. Then add in a few spells which don't have any core fluff* to say why they should be [Evil] (the undead spells again). Yeah, the 20 problems spells are really between 5 and 50 spells depending on what fantasy cannon you want to draw from. Once again, I'm working on making these 'holy of God X', or Type/Subtype keyed. *By 'core fluff' I mean the "soul immediately departs" thing. It would be very simple to add in a line or two about why a creature can't come back if its body has been turned into an undead. The logical course is that the body is currently occupied by the pulsing mass of negative energy, though some people who sleep with such badly written books as BoVD under thier pillow think the soul is still in there, being pokes by horned dorks in red pajamas.
WhtKnt 11-02-05, 02:29 PM	This is why Paladin's have allies. They can let the children live which is compassionate, and as soon as the Paladin leaves, the allies slaughter the kiddies. :P Besides, I think of Paladins as being much more black & white. Orc = evil, kill it. Orc baby = future evil, kill it, if it isn't killed now I'll just have to kill it later after it has hurt innocents.Ah, but the slaughter of unarmed beings could be considered evil, even if performed with the greater good in mind. And if the paladin's allies killed the orcs, any paladin I played would most certainly no longer associate with those who would stoop so low as to slaughter captives that the paladin (or even just a lawful good character) had promised would be spared. So the Paladin gives their word that "I will not interfere". Then as soon as the Sorceror does their thing, the Paladin tells all their paladin buddies who go and free the slaves. The Paladin is not interfering, the buddies are. :P Just need to twist words like an Aes Sedai.The laws says that aiding and abetting a felon is tantamount to committing the crime. A warped sense of honor would be lawful, he follows his own "code of personal laws".Possibly, but you're shoehorning me into an alignment by saying that because he has one redeeming feature (he won't harm children because they remind of him of his daughter who died at a young age) that makes him lawful evil, despite the fact that everything else points to him being choatic evil.
WhtKnt 11-02-05, 02:44 PM	You can get a ring of undetectable alignment for as low as 2000 gp. Already wearing two rings? Get a slotless version for 4000 gp.But should every villain the PCs encounter, no matter how major or minor, have such a device? I don't think it should be as simple as, "Detect Evil. Okay, you're out of a job."I agree, which is why, even before I dropped alignment, I took the use of that paladin ability very seriously. It was painfully obvious when a paladin was using detect evil to any being with at least average intelligence, and some took offense to it, even if they weren't evil. Casually running scans on every one you encounter can get you into trouble, just as if you were a police officer that decided to frisk everyone you passed on the street on principle. By the way, detect evil was dropped in favor of an ability tailored to the deity in question. The paladin class does not exist in my campaign. It has been replaced by the divine agent prestige class. Divine agents are similar to paladins, but one exists for every deity or belief, and each gains abilities that fit the deity or belief they follow. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean it's a ticket out of office (which might not be an option depending on the country's government). Evil doesn't even mean you're going to mistreat your subjects.True, but regardless of how the subjects feel towards the leader (benevolent or malevolent), that doesn't change the question of whether the leader is evil or not. An evil dictator who makes sure that his subject's every wants are met is still evil, and to allow evil to thrive is something that a lawful good character (not just a paladin) would not abide, according to the alignment description.
caeruleus 11-02-05, 02:45 PM	Alignment is black and white. Real life, sadly, is not nearly so simple. True. However, To complicate matters, let us take the same paladin faced with a quandry. Let's assume that she finds herself with a terrible choice to make. An evil sorcerer has the only means by which to banish a demon that threatens to destroy an entire kingdom. He is willing to aid the party in exchange for his freedom, but he also holds the inhabitants of a small village under his sway, treating them as virtual slaves. He asks the paladin to give her word that she will not harm him or interfere with him if he aids them against the fiend. If the paladin gives her word, she is committing an evil act by condemming the villagers to a life of slavery. On the other hand, the party has no hope of defeating the demon without the sorcerer's aid, and if she doesn't give her word, then the kingdom will almost certainly be destroyed and the lives of hundreds or thousands of people lost (and on her conscience). To assume that this should not be allowed to happen is to assume that morals are black and white. We can sometimes find ourselves in a situation where no matter what we do, we end up doing something wrong. (It's called "moral luck".) To assume this is not possible is to assume that for any situation, there is a right and a wrong thing to do. The real world is not quite so kind. Granted, these are unusual circumstances, but so is the example you give. In such a case, the paladin will have to make a choice and take responsibility for it, rather than shift responsibility to any sort of abstract principles. Of course, this is what paladins should be doing anyway. Even though the paladin ends up doing something wrong, she need not be blamed for it (the two do not always go together). However, no matter what she does do, she'll have to seek attonement. The alignment system does not make this any more of a riddle than it would be in real life. Of course, you could take either a utilitarian view (do whatever brings about the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people), or a Kantian view (I can imagine Kant saying that the evil sorcerer is being immoral, and hence irrational, and therefore there is no moral obligation to treat him with respect, so go ahead and lie to him), both of which could (but not necessarily) give you one "right" answer. The problem with this, however, is that both utilitarianism and Kantianism are about as simplistic as the alignment system. ;)
lostone 11-02-05, 02:47 PM	Ah, but the slaughter of unarmed beings could be considered evil, even if performed with the greater good in mind. And if the paladin's allies killed the orcs, any paladin I played would most certainly no longer associate with those who would stoop so low as to slaughter captives that the paladin (or even just a lawful good character) had promised would be spared.Like I said, we view paladins differently. The laws says that aiding and abetting a felon is tantamount to committing the crime.Depends on the kingdom you are in, the PCs are not in the USA. Possibly, but you're shoehorning me into an alignment by saying that because he has one redeeming feature (he won't harm children because they remind of him of his daughter who died at a young age) that makes him lawful evil, despite the fact that everything else points to him being choatic evil.What is chaotic about a flawless appearance and a controlled facade? If someone is truly chaotic they wouldn't exhibit that kind of control. The example you gave to me just seems to be much closer to Lawful than Chaotic.
WhtKnt 11-02-05, 03:13 PM	Depends on the kingdom you are in, the PCs are not in the USA.Fair enough, but I think that most realms with a strong moral outlook would take a similar viewpoint, and in any case, a lawful good deity almost certainly would. What is chaotic about a flawless appearance and a controlled facade? If someone is truly chaotic they wouldn't exhibit that kind of control. The example you gave to me just seems to be much closer to Lawful than Chaotic.Reading between the lines, I can see your point, but the description of the alignments says nothing about this. In any case, the question is just as valid if I had said that the villain was raggedly dressed and spoke in a manner indicative of insanity. Is he now confined to lawful evil because of one redeeming feature, of is that one feature ignored in favor of the overwhelming evidence towards choas and evil? And if you're going to make exceptions, why use alignment at all?
jagggar 11-02-05, 03:55 PM	Okay, so now let us assume that a paladin has raided an orc lair and finds a nursery of orc females and children that beg for mercy. If the paladin kills these helpless individuals, is this an evil act? It would certainly seem to be. After all, the orcs aren't hurting anyone, are unarmed, and have asked quarter. And yet, if the paladin uses detect evil, it will almost certainly reveal that these are evil creatures which, according to the paladin's tenets, must be destroyed. So is letting them live an evil act by association, even though it demonstrates compassion? Well, first off I'd say killing them would be a _____ Stupid _____ action since you wouldn't (or at the very least shouldn't) get any XP (for the children at least). This in my opinion is a situation that shows if the paladin holds lawfulness or goodness in higher reguards. A paladin who sees it is his duty to prevent evil from having a chance to take root in the world will likely end their lives. A paladin who finds mercy to be his greatest weapon against evil will spare them, and likely try to convert them. But if the orc babies do *ding*, I think the DM should not be too harsh on the player. The DM has chosen that a creature who has likely not commited any major wrongs (human kids pull sisters hair and steal a cookie too), actual evil deeds *dings* on radar even when the entire race (according to the MM) has a plurality of *dingers* instead of a majority. But with someone like me, this is how you get the creation of Stupid Good organizations. Stupid Good organizations are the ones who set up monsterous orphanages that'll take in any creature they can, even if conventional wisdom says you're an idiot for thinking you can get a good red dragon if you raise it right. The use of Taint from Unearthed Arcana insures that characters don't run rampant, doings terrible things without repercussions. They know that performing evil acts leads to bad things. And how are those evil acts defined? Change what they mean inthe world. Having a subtype doesn't mean that you're an avatar of that outset anylonger, but instead means your core makeup is fundamantally different from other creatures to the point that you are effected differently by, say, a holy weapon. That's because there are a LOT of different ways to go about fixing them. Currently I'm toying with making all weapons 'holy of God X' where they effect enemies of the church and things the god hates. But other methods exist, such as making them only effect subtyped creatures. Boy could that get complex. But I do like it. It goes with the idea that consecrate/desecrate is based on the deity, not the silly good=positive thing (at least when it comes to the severing ties part of the spell). The logical course is that the body is currently occupied by the pulsing mass of negative energy, though some people who sleep with such badly written books as BoVD under thier pillow think the soul is still in there, being pokes by horned dorks in red pajamas. That was my first thought, until you come across reincarnate which creates a new body or true res that doesn't need one at all don't work with an undead walking around either. But should every villain the PCs encounter, no matter how major or minor, have such a device? Only the ones that it was appropriate for. The BBEG that's funding an army to kill fuzzy animals and a cult to raise an evil god and wants everyone to know it isn't going to care who knows he's evil (and probably announces it loudly). The BBEG that wants to get as close to the PCs as he can so he can backstab them or learn better ways to get at them should have one. True, but regardless of how the subjects feel towards the leader (benevolent or malevolent), that doesn't change the question of whether the leader is evil or not. An evil dictator who makes sure that his subject's every wants are met is still evil, and to allow evil to thrive is something that a lawful good character (not just a paladin) would not abide, according to the alignment description. I never said it made it peachy-keen in the sight of the Pally. This is a way to have one of those tough moral/ethical descions that some people think you can't have if you use alignment. What is chaotic about a flawless appearance and a controlled facade? If someone is truly chaotic they wouldn't exhibit that kind of control. The example you gave to me just seems to be much closer to Lawful than Chaotic. I don't see where the description of chaotic says that you can't be controlled. Say, would you mind giving me your opinion on a character I have?
HamHam 11-02-05, 05:09 PM	I've removed alignment from my game rather easily, by not removing it. I've just made it magic-based. Basically you have Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic magical energies, and anything or anyone who becomes aligned to these magical energies in excess gains an Alignment that reflects this. Thus, it has nothing to do with morallity, or actions, just the sort of magical energies you associate with.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-05, 05:16 PM	That was my first thought, until you come across reincarnate which creates a new body or true res that doesn't need one at all don't work with an undead walking around either. Reincarnate does work on people whose bodies are undead. True Res can't be used to say, instantly turn a vampire into a normal human.
caeruleus 11-02-05, 08:28 PM	I've removed alignment from my game rather easily, by not removing it. I've just made it magic-based. Basically you have Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic magical energies, and anything or anyone who becomes aligned to these magical energies in excess gains an Alignment that reflects this. Thus, it has nothing to do with morallity, or actions, just the sort of magical energies you associate with. Nice way of handling it.
^Graff_EpsilonIX 11-02-05, 08:50 PM	One way that works is something like the starwars system. There is no alignment, but extreme acts of good are merited and so are extreme acts of evil. Other than that, everyone can act as they please without staying in some box. It allows people to develop "alignment" based on personality, not a box o' rules.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 11-02-05, 10:10 PM	The primary problem I have with the alignment system is the "you are Good, and therefore must work together" problem which crops up so often. When Angels are servants of Good and niceness towards the inocent they become a wholely reliable ally. When they will pick up their sword at a word from their diety and willingly slay the firstborn children of the nation, the party treats them with a little more respect and caution. Necromancy ceases to be a slippery slope, with a fine balance between the needs of the living and respect for the dead, and becomes Evil to be Smited. Paladins are shining examples of niceness and mercy, rather than coldhearted zealots whose hearts are filled with hatred for their foes.
Stev Beren 11-02-05, 10:26 PM	Yes. BY definition, that is, indeed, what paladins are. Good guys. THe Cold hearted hating Zealots are represented by a different combination of class and alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 11-02-05, 11:33 PM	Yes. BY definition, that is, indeed, what paladins are. Good guys. THe Cold hearted hating Zealots are represented by a different combination of class and alignment. Not in DnD. "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy is Lawful Good."
caeruleus 11-02-05, 11:53 PM	Most of the problems being raised are not problems with the alignment system, but problems with how people interpret what "good", "evil", etc, mean. For example, Paladins are shining examples of niceness and mercy, rather than coldhearted zealots whose hearts are filled with hatred for their foes. That doesn't need to be what a Lawful Good alignment amounts to. In the Greyhawk campaign, Pholtus is a Lawful Good deity who believes that his way is the only right way, and he has no tolerance for other views. His followers (including some paladins) tend to be, like Pholtus himself, "coldhearted zealots whose hearts are filled with hatred for their foes." Pholtus's main rival is St. Cuthbert (who in Greyhawk is supposed to be Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral... he was changed only for the "core" books). While we're on the subject of Greyhawk gods, I'll also mention Trithereon, Chaotic Good god of freedom and liberation. He fights Lawful Good gods just as often as he fights Lawful Evil ones. Nothing in the alignment system say that this cannot happen.
Tommy04 11-14-05, 09:15 PM	The Problem is that alignments are black and white. And to keep a system like this working, things have to work in the same way. If alignments should work, the DM needs to change the story so that the good always wins. A nice example has been given given: To complicate matters, let us take the same paladin faced with a quandry. Let's assume that she finds herself with a terrible choice to make. An evil sorcerer has the only means by which to banish a demon that threatens to destroy an entire kingdom. He is willing to aid the party in exchange for his freedom, but he also holds the inhabitants of a small village under his sway, treating them as virtual slaves. He asks the paladin to give her word that she will not harm him or interfere with him if he aids them against the fiend. If the paladin gives her word, she is committing an evil act by condemming the villagers to a life of slavery. On the other hand, the party has no hope of defeating the demon without the sorcerer's aid, and if she doesn't give her word, then the kingdom will almost certainly be destroyed and the lives of hundreds or thousands of people lost (and on her conscience). It would suite nice for a NPC that finally became a fallen paladin. But such a choice *never* needs to be made by the typical-lawful-good-hero actor. Sometimes movies or novels fool us so that we think the problem has been somehow solved. For this example, the heroes propably would decide for the help of the evil sorcerer and thus against the poor villagers. But within the fight with the demon, the demon and the evil sorcerer would kill each other, so the heroes would win. Note that one of the heroes may be killed, but the heroes morale must remain unquestionable. You can't tell players to be pure heroes and then force them into an evil descision. If you decide to take alignments for real and not just like guidelines, the whole story has to be black&white. But that's ok for a fantasy game. If you want your characters not to act black&white and you want your whole world not to be just black&white, you have to give up alignments or handle them not that strict.
Arnkel 11-18-05, 06:45 PM	I use Alignment as a guideline for RPing monsters, but when it comes to the players I don't bother telling them what they are or that they can't do something. I keep a graph for each character. Any major actions are recorded. Whenever an alignment sensitive issue comes up, I look to see where the character is on the chart. The characters never know where they are because I don't show them, but they have a pretty good idea. I got the idea from the Greyhawk book with the Griffon rider on it in the zero level characters section in the back.
Kyuketsukiouji 11-18-05, 08:14 PM	Not in DnD. "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy is Lawful Good." "Fighting evil" means "killing evil beings" as much as "fighting poverty" means "killing poor people". It's not because Alhandra shows no mercy to evil that she brutally slaughters anyone who registers to detect evil. There are other ways to fight evil, after all. I keep a graph for each character. Any major actions are recorded. Whenever an alignment sensitive issue comes up, I look to see where the character is on the chart. That's how I do it too. Players select their alignment at character selection, and then I track how it changes as they play. Players know they can change alignment, and that there's no bias against them doing so, unless they're playing a class that needs to maintain a certain alignment. I have a deep-seated dislike of any DM that says "You can't do that, you're a X alignment character".
lostone 01-10-06, 09:15 AM	Just wondering if anyone had implemented any of the ideas here and how it is/was working for you? Also, to anyone who responds, what ideas did you use?
Cantankerous 01-10-06, 09:44 AM	KEEP IT! I know Vaal's opinion, and he's entitled to it, but I disagree with it utterly and completely. It's not just a few spells that are dependant on Alignment. It's an entire sub-section of magic, how it's used and how it functions, it's a number of Magic Items and most of all, it's the entire flavor and texture of the Outer Palnes and the mythologies of D&D. Can you do without it? Of course you can. You can play D&D without dice to. I don't like that variation either though. The Alignment system, if you actually use it as it is written, instead iof the bastardized version thereof that basicly EVERY person I've seen compalin about Alignment seems to prefer, it works just fine. It restricts how you play your characters in NO MANNER whatsoever. It only defines them more clearly. It's a tool, nothing more. You can build a house without a hammer, but it's alot easier when you use one, especially if you use it correctly. Isshia