Alignment in D&D has a sordid history, if one is to consider just the discussion that takes place on these forums. I have personally experienced the good and the bad of the previous alignment systems. I believe that the problem with the system's progression lies in the inability of the designers to take a definitive stand on what alignment is/was/should be, and what it means for the game.
Some claim: Alignment is a straitjacket. It prevents me from playing the character I want to play. It forces me to consider only those actions that would be appropriate for my alignment, without considering a more in-depth analysis of character needs/wants/desires. It penalizes me when I want to take my character to places I hadn't considered when I made him.
Others claim: Alignment helps new gamers wrap their heads around motivations. It classifies behavior so that certain actions have a clear moral base to them. It allows for mechanical elements that reflect in-game assumptions (evil deities have evil followers; a holy, intelligent sword deals more damage to unholy creatures). It codifies a world where good vs. evil is a major theme.
Both of these views are perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned. Both speak to a certain starting point when it comes to role playing. But the most important question to ask before employing an alignment system is this: What is the point of the game?
Dungeons and Dragons has always been about heroes fighting monsters. Vampire (and similar games) is about the personal struggle against darkness and depravity. Heroes is about comic-book-type superheroes fighting supervillains in an effort to make the world safe.
My summary of these games is open to debate, but what I've done is isolate my personal view of the most important aspects of these games. From there I would consider how the concept of value fits in to the game.
In Heroes, the players are superheroes, and often they're comic-book superheroes. They are black-n-white good guys that fight the bad guys and obey all the laws. They don't often face situations where "adult" content is present, or where they have to make overly difficult choices. In fact, the books talk about the difference between "classic hero" style games and "darker" themes. There's a trait, something about a vow of mercy, that prevents those who take it from killing an enemy, under any circumstance. The game encourages GMs to decide what type of game they're running, and to use limits accordingly. If the GM wants to run a classic comic book game, perhaps with teenagers or young kids as the players, then she may want to require that they each take the vow of mercy. But it's the GM's call.
The World of Darkness (the base game for White Wolf's new line of Vampire, Werewolf, and others) is a game about the personal fight against darkness. It has a system for measuring morality for mortals. (Interestingly, when your character becomes something other than mortal, you lose your morality and it's replaced with a different system.) The idea is that mortals are potentially affected by the lure of good or evil behaviors. All characters have Willpower points. These can be spent to augment actions, making the character more heroic (useful when your actions have been penalized to the point of utter failure). When a character acts in a way that matches his particular Virtue or Vice, he might get Willpower back. This represents the character's affirmation of self. A storyteller may allow a character to change his Virtue or Vice during the game, but it's rare and requires a proper explanation.
D&D is a game about heroes fighting monsters. In the past this meant that a way of quantifying good and evil was necessary. Thus it had the alignment system. In its current incarnation, though, it's all fluff, and in many ways makes no sense. Speaking of RAW (which I despise, but have to deal with), there's no rule that says a cleric loses his powers when he violates his alignment. So it's clear that there's no incentive to use the alignment system.
But there used to be. Granted, it had its problems, but it had some uses as well. My view is that a skilled DM/group could use alignment as a tool to enhance the game, and when it got in the way, they would ignore it. But in all the previous editions there was at least a semblance of a mechanical system that embraced the existence of alignment.
I start from this proposition: D&D is about heroes fighting monsters. Heroes are good, and monsters are evil. An alignment system that represents this may be used to augment or enhance the game. But it should also be designed with the understanding the the common pitfalls of the previous system should be avoided. (At present I believe those pitfalls were entirely player/DM based, and were not inherent to the game, but if anyone quotes from 2nd Edition they'll probably prove me wrong.)
So my question/challenge is this: what mechanics can we bring to the game that supports an alignment system? I don't care how the alignments are defined, and I don't care what mechanics we use. I just want to know what people think.
P.S. I'm not as interested in hearing, "Alignment sucks, so don't use it." If you think it sucks (and it does), please tell me how or why, and then suggest something that would make it not suck.
Alignment should be pure story, no mechanics.
One of the things I loved about the first edition is that being a paladin was tied to being lawful good. You had to act the part, and it encouraged RP.
The current method, which is pretty much a free for all, does not encourage RP at all.
One thing filmmakers like to say is that when you work within limits, you come up with more creative ideas... that holds true in gaming... :D
I dissagree, Salla.
One of the things I loved about the first edition is that being a paladin was tied to being lawful good. You had to act the part, and it encouraged RP.
The current method, which is pretty much a free for all, does not encourage RP at all.
One thing filmmakers like to say is that when you work within limits, you come up with more creative ideas... that holds true in gaming... :D
I cannot imagine needing game mechanics to roleplay.
I cannot imagine needing game mechanics to roleplay.
Don't you watch the news? Politicians do it all the time!
They have rules by their party, and if they don't conform to those rules, they are cast out. Granted, they're paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in extorted tax revenue to play those roles...
I didn't see that... (I seem to recall that it there was going to be a campaign setting called "Flamewar")...
I'm merely suggesting that Politicians get paid, Players do not... DMs, however, should get paid... it's bloody hard work!
I meant to imply that a flamewar might start. I've read too many posts where someone says something slightly off-kilter, and someone else comes in and gets bent out of shape. If I'm the one getting bent, my apologies.
In other words: I'm not DMing the board
I only beat up on my players, and usually do a piss poor job at it...I dissagree, Salla.
One of the things I loved about the first edition is that being a paladin was tied to being lawful good. You had to act the part, and it encouraged RP.
The current method, which is pretty much a free for all, does not encourage RP at all.
One thing filmmakers like to say is that when you work within limits, you come up with more creative ideas... that holds true in gaming... :D
You can still play LG paladin, you just are not required to. And for many players, the paladin's code became a hammer for DMs to use whenever they just didn't like the way a player was RPing his character. The current method acknowledges that there are different types of paladins instead of requiring separate classes for each alignment. That doesn't mean it doesn't encourage RP (if you are serving a god or a cause that right there is something to RP), but it doesn't force you into any particular action.
In fact, I find the new method more encouraging of RP. The strict code and harsh punishments for even a single act that strays from the code lead to characters that seemed 2D and just plain uninteresting once you've seen one or two played because they have so little choice in anything they do. The only thing that was even remotely interesting was with a 3e player who planned his paladin's fall and switch to Blackguard, but even that was only interesting because I hadn't seen it done yet. Now you can play a LG pally without having to be stupid good.
However, what I would like to see is the Paladin class tied directly to deities and the rules of those dieties... at the same time very strict, yet with choices...