An Alternate Alignment System

[bigstipidfighte]

Personally I've never been a fan of D&D alignment, and I've been considering the possibility of changing or eliminating it.

What if Palladium alignment or WoD Morality were inserted in it's place?

I think Palladium could be easily inserted, here are the translations I'd use for alignment-based effects-

Principled- LG
Scrupulous- NG
Unprincipled- N
Anarchist- CN
Miscreant- CE
Abberant- LE
Diabolic- CE

As for removing alignment entirely, perhaps AL-dependent effects could be based on what the target is doing/thinking at the time? Alternatively, such effects could simply never apply to races that have freedom to choose their alignment.

[sdream]

I'd go with elimination entirely. I think the alignment system just gets in the way of playing what you think the person would do, and falls into all sorts of subjective morality issues.

Having effects which require it key of the short term emotions is fine and interesting.

A powerful holy item might strike back at it's wielder if they are not pure of intention.

A powerful evil item might take control or attack it's wielder if they are too "weak".

Spells might harm only those with contrary intent (if nothing else, they become more flexible/consolidated when Dictum is holy word is blasphemy)

[eggs]

I would seriously love for it to be "White Hat/Black Hat."

Because I can see some merits to concrete alignments (Blasphemy and Holy Smite spells are cool), but the underlying system seriously needs to stop level 1 paladins from ruining mysteries, messily-defined Law/Chaos axes from bogging down gameplay and, most of all, the game from encouraging players to take the alignment division so damned seriously.

[Fighter1000]

I don't think the alignment system really has any place in the game.
Honestly the whole alignment thing feels so constricting anyway.
It gets in the way of roleplaying my damn character.
Those spells and effects that deal with alignments like the paladin,
"Oh, you can only use that special attack against EVIL foes."
Big whoop.
The drawing of lines messes things up. Separates the party.
"Oh, I can't group up with that guy. He's CHAOTIC EVIL!
And me, I am a paladin, I can't keep that sort of company. Shove off, you MISCREANT!"
Lame. Let's just not worry about alignments, okay?
And especially the whole thing where your character's alignment can change based on what he/she does in the game. How do you measure that?
"Oh, you have to do 7 more good deeds b4 becoming CHAOTIC GOOD!"
Says the DM. Okay, how "good" do those good deeds have to be?
And then you might have a hard time roleplaying a character who is "lawful good" if you are a "chaotic neutral" person in real life.
In conclusion, I think D&D's alignment system is overly judgmental and it feels like I'm living in a damn prison. So screw it.

[willpell]

Personally, I love alignment, although it does have to be used with a light touch and a lot of nuance, or else you get hurt feelings and system malfunctions. If mucking with alignments, keep in mind that you're going to have to adjust a lot of gameplay widgets that are written on the assumption of its presence. The Palladium system is basically just D&D alignment with True Neutral and Neutral Good removed because Siembieda doesn't believe in neutrality, so it makes for an easy translation.

Not sure what you mean by mentioning WOD, which has never had anything resembling an alignment system, instead it has personality archetypes which are far more character-specific, and wouldn't translate to something like a Book of Vile Darkness or a Holy Smite spell. Nevermind I'm dumb.

[Infernalbargain]

Aye, I almost never write down an alignment for my characters. The reason is that I like to dance around moral grey areas. I also like to make the detect X results reflect the views of user. I take it that everyone believes their doing good (occasional exceptions for extreme CE), so now one of the drow priestesses casts detect alignment in the temple (to hunt down the PC's or something). Are we going to have an entire society believes that they're evil because of the objective evidence before them? That doesn't make sense. The actions of an individual (by extension society) are driven by what they think ought to be done. What they think ought to be done is defined by what they think is good. Thus, the individual (society) views what they are doing to be good. People generally throwaway beliefs when objective evidence is provided against it (creationism aside). Therefore alignment based effects are either subjective or viewed as unreliable in evil societies.

[willpell]

I take it that everyone believes their doing good (occasional exceptions for extreme CE), so now one of the drow priestesses casts detect alignment in the temple (to hunt down the PC's or something). Are we going to have an entire society believes that they're evil because of the objective evidence before them?

Their society may use a word for what they regard as "good" but which is most accurately translated into Common as "evil", because it extols predation and corruption as virtues, tools for staying strong to survive and getting the most out of life while it lasts, while decrying compassion as weakness and justice as a fallacy. Just because they consider it "good" by their own standards doesn't mean it lines up with the Book of Exalted Deeds, which they would regard as angelic propaganda designed to subjugate and brainwash anyone foolish enough to believe it.


The actions of an individual (by extension society) are driven by what they think ought to be done. What they think ought to be done is defined by what they think is good.

Not necessarily. Sometimes people think they're obligated to do something even though they know it's bad for them. They eat a hamburger because they have an irresistable craving for meat, then they run until their legs and lungs are burning in order to burn off the excess calories, and that leaves them exhausted so they oversleep the next morning and are late to work, so they lie to their boss about why because they'll lose their job otherwise. This doesn't mean they think that gluttony, overexertion, sloth and bald-faced lies are objectively good things, only that they do not believe they can choose the alternative (staying hungry, gaining weight, shambling into work while sleep-deprived, or being fired for tardiness). Following one's own virtues is not always practically possible; that's the entire reason why humanity's default alignment is Neutral rather than Good.

[Infernalbargain]

Their society may use a word for what they regard as "good" but which is most accurately translated into Common as "evil", because it extols predation and corruption as virtues, tools for staying strong to survive and getting the most out of life while it lasts, while decrying compassion as weakness and justice as a fallacy. Just because they consider it "good" by their own standards doesn't mean it lines up with the Book of Exalted Deeds, which they would regard as angelic propaganda designed to subjugate and brainwash anyone foolish enough to believe it.

That word is frequently pragmatism which IMO is one of the best ways to treat villians or evil societies. When morals start competing with survival, survival wins. Breed in that mindset for a few generations and let tradition take hold for a while. Suddenly even the vilest of societies become a lot more sympathetic. So where does that sympathy come from?


Not necessarily. Sometimes people think they're obligated to do something even though they know it's bad for them. They eat a hamburger because they have an irresistable craving for meat, then they run until their legs and lungs are burning in order to burn off the excess calories, and that leaves them exhausted so they oversleep the next morning and are late to work, so they lie to their boss about why because they'll lose their job otherwise. This doesn't mean they think that gluttony, overexertion, sloth and bald-faced lies are objectively good things, only that they do not believe they can choose the alternative (staying hungry, gaining weight, shambling into work while sleep-deprived, or being fired for tardiness). Following one's own virtues is not always practically possible; that's the entire reason why humanity's default alignment is Neutral rather than Good.

People still perform the marginal analysis. Replace "good" with marginally "good" and my analysis still holds. In your example, they did it because they thought it was worth it.

[Deadlights]

I think that the alignment system is fine, I just dislike how most players go about using it. Most players think "my alignment is X therefore my character should do Y" as opposed to the much less constrictive "my character would choose to do Y, therefore his alignment is X".

[toapat]

The best translation of the Alignement system to a less poo version was the Alignments to MTG's Color conversion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163) (Note: Heavily Flawed and lacking in the full complexity of MTG's Color Wheel, one such flaw is Paladins are White, not Red).

The Alignment System of DnD is heavily flawed partially because it doesnt define the alignment system well enough for its own purposes, and certain classes, like paladin, possitively ruin people's experience with the game because of the poor alignment system.

[Lord_Gareth]

The best translation of the Alignement system to a less poo version was the Alignments to MTG's Color conversion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163) (Note: Heavily Flawed and lacking in the full complexity of MTG's Color Wheel, one such flaw is Paladins are White, not Red).

Sir, I do believe you dropped this gauntlet here on the floor. Care to explain where it came from?

[toapat]

Sir, I do believe you dropped this gauntlet here on the floor. Care to explain where it came from?

the entire problem with the rework is the level of examination and comprehension of the color wheel.

The problem is, no one has made the Alignment system yet, so there is no perfect one.

[Lord_Gareth]

the entire problem with the rework is the level of examination and comprehension of the color wheel.

My comprehension comes from reading the color articles. I'd love to hear where you think I got it wrong.

[Ravens_cry]

If I was going to drop the alignment system, I'd replace like replace it with an allegiance based system, and spells that hide and detect alignment detect and hide enmity. I especially want to try this in a civil war campaign of ambiguous morality; a campaign where you might have on your side utter scum who in other circumstances you would hang from the nearest gibbet, but damn it, they are your utter scum.