Allegiance vs. Alignment - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Allegiance vs. Alignment

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mystrich
Jun 01, 2008 9:59:15 I've been playing d20 Modern a bit more, and their allegiance system (instead of Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral, etc., you write down goals, corporations, or other things) seems to work much better than even the loose alignment system in Eberron. Especially when you have people working for more than one organization. Well, Lawful Good doesn't tell you which they are loyal too, and which they are betraying, and it seems to capture an Eberron character working towards what they see as the greater good, evil, law, or chaos, since they act based on who they are loyal too.

Others thoughts?
#2
snarky_monkey
Jun 01, 2008 11:05:53 I think the closest thing to this I have seen is when you pick a deity to follow. By association the player usually then takes up the cause of that deity so has a better focus. When running games I tend to request both an alignment and a basis for their beliefs being part of that alignment, so it's easier for the player to develop their character in that way. The addition of Unaligned in 4e is going to make the kind of thing your talking about even more important to encourage in games, since it's not even a neutral viewpoint now, more of an I don't give a care either way viewpoint.
#3
mystrich
Jun 01, 2008 19:45:24 So how can your players justify an alignment if they have no allegiance to anyone or anything. I think Allegiance basically does what the loose alignment does and more. Example, a person in both the Aurum and the Emerald Claw, is LE, and betrays the Claw for the Aurum. They justify betrayal being Lawful because it's Lawful to the Aurum (in normal DnD, they'd switch to NE at this point, or start going in that direction). In Allegiance terms, they just have "Allegiance: Aurum" rather than LE that needs to be justified somehow.
#4
Edymnion
Jun 01, 2008 21:30:57 I think you misunderstand how alignment works.
Its not supposed to tell you what kind of allegiance you have, or how you should act, or anything like that. It is a thermometer that tells you the general outlook of the character. 90% of the time, the alignment you have written on your character sheet should be absolutely meaningless.

Alignment should never be used to try and tie groups together, because its so very broad that it cannot be used to make sharp divisions between people that are required in order to group them.

For the classic example, Superman and Batman are two *VERY* different kinds of characters, with extremely different goals and motivations, but they're both Lawful Good.

So, its not supposed to tell anyone your loyalties any more than your favorite color in real life is going to tell anyone who you'll vote for. You can have greedy, self centered, and Evil characters doing good, charitable work and making the world a better place, just like you can have well meaning kind hearted people committing atrocities.

The only times alignment should ever be an issue is when there is a game mechanic (such as a spell or a class restriction) thats based off it. At all other times, your alignment should not even come up.
#5
snarky_monkey
Jun 01, 2008 21:39:36
The only times alignment should ever be an issue is when there is a game mechanic (such as a spell or a class restriction) thats based off it. At all other times, your alignment should not even come up.

That is one of the reasons I was happy when I heard that alignments, as we know them in 3.5, have gone the way of the dodo. In the old system, yes, you could just ignore it, except for game mechanic effects, but the fact is you shouldn't have from an RP perspective. That is where it would get the most complicated. If you actually policed, to an extent, the behavior of the players compared to their alignment, you'd come upon times where you'd have to remind players that an action they were doing was inappropriate or even go to the extreme of causing them an alignment shift. I believe that's why most people would take chaotic good, cause you could basically rationalize almost any behavior without a lot of exceptions.
#6
Edymnion
Jun 01, 2008 21:58:56
That is one of the reasons I was happy when I heard that alignments, as we know them in 3.5, have gone the way of the dodo. In the old system, yes, you could just ignore it, except for game mechanic effects, but the fact is you shouldn't have from an RP perspective. That is where it would get the most complicated. If you actually policed, to an extent, the behavior of the players compared to their alignment, you'd come upon times where you'd have to remind players that an action they were doing was inappropriate or even go to the extreme of causing them an alignment shift. I believe that's why most people would take chaotic good, cause you could basically rationalize almost any behavior without a lot of exceptions.

IMO, the phrase "You can't do that, you're X" should *NEVER* be uttered in regards to alignment.
You should not be roleplaying your alignment, you should be roleplaying your character, with the alignment changing as needed to reflect the way you are playing your character. Alignment shifts are not bad things, they are not punishment, they are not things to be avoided. With a character that grows and changes over time, it should be more or less expected that they could have an alignment change.

Just like a thermometer simply reflects changes in air temperature, so does alignment simply reflect the changes in viewpoint of your character. You can't change the temperature outside by changing what the thermometer says, just like you can't change the way your character acts just by changing what their character sheet says under Alignment.
#7
snarky_monkey
Jun 01, 2008 22:48:23 Actually I never have said you can't do that to any of my players. I guess when I said policed I meant made them aware that this would affect their alignment, for good or ill , including what would come from that because of the mechanics. I believe as well that alignment should be a fluid thing, but all too often I have noticed that many players don't want the mechanics consequences to their RP choices.
#8
julescarv
Jun 01, 2008 23:45:39 There are any number of ways of handling this: get rid of alignment and all its substitutes entirely and just have morality be a matter of roleplaying (the issue, I think, is balancing creatures DR/alignment while taking away that specific type of DR i.e., just leaving a Balor DR 15/silver instead of DR 15/good and silver would weaken it). Use the D20 Modern allegience system. Adopt something like the Vampire humanity/path system. Base everything on Magic: The Gathering colors. Develop a completely different homebrew system. (I have one of those).

Eberron is a setting where alignment is assumed to exist, but unlike, say, a Planescape campaign with the Great Wheel and such, it doesn't have to exist.

I think switching to allegience -- or one of many other possibilities -- could work. It's not the only solution, but it's not an unworkable idea. At least, I don't see why it would be, although I'll admit I don't have D20 modern. From what I've gleaned, though, it seems possible. Anyone see potential snags there?
#9
Marcus_Majarra
Jun 02, 2008 0:24:50 Personally, I found the affiliation system introduced in 3E to be far more representative of character motivations than alignment or allegiances. After all, you can be involved with multiple affiliations, and since your affiliation score is measured against a scale and based on your contribution to the affiliation itself, it becomes a good gauge of how your character feels with respect to a group or organization.
#10
roger_nicholls_dup
Jun 02, 2008 0:51:32
IMO, the phrase "You can't do that, you're X" should *NEVER* be uttered in regards to alignment.
You should not be roleplaying your alignment, you should be roleplaying your character, with the alignment changing as needed to reflect the way you are playing your character. Alignment shifts are not bad things, they are not punishment, they are not things to be avoided. With a character that grows and changes over time, it should be more or less expected that they could have an alignment change.

Just like a thermometer simply reflects changes in air temperature, so does alignment simply reflect the changes in viewpoint of your character. You can't change the temperature outside by changing what the thermometer says, just like you can't change the way your character acts just by changing what their character sheet says under Alignment.

You know what Edymnion you have managed to sum something up in a couple of paragraphs that ive tried to explain numerous times for the past 25 years of gaming !! Thanks for that - duly printed to be read out at the start of the next session :-)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mystrich Jun 01, 2008 9:59:15	I've been playing d20 Modern a bit more, and their allegiance system (instead of Lawful Good, Chaotic Neutral, etc., you write down goals, corporations, or other things) seems to work much better than even the loose alignment system in Eberron. Especially when you have people working for more than one organization. Well, Lawful Good doesn't tell you which they are loyal too, and which they are betraying, and it seems to capture an Eberron character working towards what they see as the greater good, evil, law, or chaos, since they act based on who they are loyal too. Others thoughts?
#2 snarky_monkey Jun 01, 2008 11:05:53	I think the closest thing to this I have seen is when you pick a deity to follow. By association the player usually then takes up the cause of that deity so has a better focus. When running games I tend to request both an alignment and a basis for their beliefs being part of that alignment, so it's easier for the player to develop their character in that way. The addition of Unaligned in 4e is going to make the kind of thing your talking about even more important to encourage in games, since it's not even a neutral viewpoint now, more of an I don't give a care either way viewpoint.
#3 mystrich Jun 01, 2008 19:45:24	So how can your players justify an alignment if they have no allegiance to anyone or anything. I think Allegiance basically does what the loose alignment does and more. Example, a person in both the Aurum and the Emerald Claw, is LE, and betrays the Claw for the Aurum. They justify betrayal being Lawful because it's Lawful to the Aurum (in normal DnD, they'd switch to NE at this point, or start going in that direction). In Allegiance terms, they just have "Allegiance: Aurum" rather than LE that needs to be justified somehow.
#4 Edymnion Jun 01, 2008 21:30:57	I think you misunderstand how alignment works. Its not supposed to tell you what kind of allegiance you have, or how you should act, or anything like that. It is a thermometer that tells you the general outlook of the character. 90% of the time, the alignment you have written on your character sheet should be absolutely meaningless. Alignment should never be used to try and tie groups together, because its so very broad that it cannot be used to make sharp divisions between people that are required in order to group them. For the classic example, Superman and Batman are two VERY different kinds of characters, with extremely different goals and motivations, but they're both Lawful Good. So, its not supposed to tell anyone your loyalties any more than your favorite color in real life is going to tell anyone who you'll vote for. You can have greedy, self centered, and Evil characters doing good, charitable work and making the world a better place, just like you can have well meaning kind hearted people committing atrocities. The only times alignment should ever be an issue is when there is a game mechanic (such as a spell or a class restriction) thats based off it. At all other times, your alignment should not even come up.
#5 snarky_monkey Jun 01, 2008 21:39:36	The only times alignment should ever be an issue is when there is a game mechanic (such as a spell or a class restriction) thats based off it. At all other times, your alignment should not even come up. That is one of the reasons I was happy when I heard that alignments, as we know them in 3.5, have gone the way of the dodo. In the old system, yes, you could just ignore it, except for game mechanic effects, but the fact is you shouldn't have from an RP perspective. That is where it would get the most complicated. If you actually policed, to an extent, the behavior of the players compared to their alignment, you'd come upon times where you'd have to remind players that an action they were doing was inappropriate or even go to the extreme of causing them an alignment shift. I believe that's why most people would take chaotic good, cause you could basically rationalize almost any behavior without a lot of exceptions.
#6 Edymnion Jun 01, 2008 21:58:56	That is one of the reasons I was happy when I heard that alignments, as we know them in 3.5, have gone the way of the dodo. In the old system, yes, you could just ignore it, except for game mechanic effects, but the fact is you shouldn't have from an RP perspective. That is where it would get the most complicated. If you actually policed, to an extent, the behavior of the players compared to their alignment, you'd come upon times where you'd have to remind players that an action they were doing was inappropriate or even go to the extreme of causing them an alignment shift. I believe that's why most people would take chaotic good, cause you could basically rationalize almost any behavior without a lot of exceptions. IMO, the phrase "You can't do that, you're X" should NEVER be uttered in regards to alignment. You should not be roleplaying your alignment, you should be roleplaying your character, with the alignment changing as needed to reflect the way you are playing your character. Alignment shifts are not bad things, they are not punishment, they are not things to be avoided. With a character that grows and changes over time, it should be more or less expected that they could have an alignment change. Just like a thermometer simply reflects changes in air temperature, so does alignment simply reflect the changes in viewpoint of your character. You can't change the temperature outside by changing what the thermometer says, just like you can't change the way your character acts just by changing what their character sheet says under Alignment.
#7 snarky_monkey Jun 01, 2008 22:48:23	Actually I never have said you can't do that to any of my players. I guess when I said policed I meant made them aware that this would affect their alignment, for good or ill , including what would come from that because of the mechanics. I believe as well that alignment should be a fluid thing, but all too often I have noticed that many players don't want the mechanics consequences to their RP choices.
#8 julescarv Jun 01, 2008 23:45:39	There are any number of ways of handling this: get rid of alignment and all its substitutes entirely and just have morality be a matter of roleplaying (the issue, I think, is balancing creatures DR/alignment while taking away that specific type of DR i.e., just leaving a Balor DR 15/silver instead of DR 15/good and silver would weaken it). Use the D20 Modern allegience system. Adopt something like the Vampire humanity/path system. Base everything on Magic: The Gathering colors. Develop a completely different homebrew system. (I have one of those). Eberron is a setting where alignment is assumed to exist, but unlike, say, a Planescape campaign with the Great Wheel and such, it doesn't have to exist. I think switching to allegience -- or one of many other possibilities -- could work. It's not the only solution, but it's not an unworkable idea. At least, I don't see why it would be, although I'll admit I don't have D20 modern. From what I've gleaned, though, it seems possible. Anyone see potential snags there?
#9 Marcus_Majarra Jun 02, 2008 0:24:50	Personally, I found the affiliation system introduced in 3E to be far more representative of character motivations than alignment or allegiances. After all, you can be involved with multiple affiliations, and since your affiliation score is measured against a scale and based on your contribution to the affiliation itself, it becomes a good gauge of how your character feels with respect to a group or organization.
#10 roger_nicholls_dup Jun 02, 2008 0:51:32	IMO, the phrase "You can't do that, you're X" should NEVER be uttered in regards to alignment. You should not be roleplaying your alignment, you should be roleplaying your character, with the alignment changing as needed to reflect the way you are playing your character. Alignment shifts are not bad things, they are not punishment, they are not things to be avoided. With a character that grows and changes over time, it should be more or less expected that they could have an alignment change. Just like a thermometer simply reflects changes in air temperature, so does alignment simply reflect the changes in viewpoint of your character. You can't change the temperature outside by changing what the thermometer says, just like you can't change the way your character acts just by changing what their character sheet says under Alignment. You know what Edymnion you have managed to sum something up in a couple of paragraphs that ive tried to explain numerous times for the past 25 years of gaming !! Thanks for that - duly printed to be read out at the start of the next session :-)