Yitzi
2013-05-29, 08:06 PM
Ah, alignment. Probably even a tougher problem to take on than fighter and monk fixes. Straybow's post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15293672&postcount=62) got me thinking about what exactly alignment is, and I think I've got a theory of why it's such a problematic issue:
Basically, alignment was originally designed as "sides", as implied by the name: You had Lawful, which was the side of civilization/good, you had Chaotic, which was the side of barbarism/evil, and you had the neutrals.
And in the very beginning, when D&D was mainly a smaller-scale type of wargaming, that was ok. But then they added the rogue, and skills, and an overall more complex approach than "kill the other side", and overall made it more simulationist. While that has greatly enriched the game (I certainly wouldn't have it any other way), it did mean that the idea of alignment as it was really didn't work any more; it simply can't the unprincipled mercenary who helps the forces of Law because they pay more, or the vigilante who sides with Law but breaks all the rules in order to do so.
So they changed the system, and made it more versatile and more about personality type than morality-based sides. But in the process, each alignment was made to be based on several not-closely-connected factors; when those factors split from each other, you get confusion and debate.
Thus, it seems to me that an alignment rework, in order to be a proper successor to the original alignment system and still work, must fulfill the following criteria:
1. It must clearly divide people up. Everyone should belong to exactly one alignment (possibly including "unaligned" or "neutral"), and there should be concrete rules by which a particular person can be categorized in terms of alignment.
2. It must be a potential source of conflict. Any two different alignments (other than "unaligned") should at least potentially have criticisms of each other to the point of using violence over the matter.
So..given these criteria, what are some ideas for various alignment systems (or even just collections of alignments)?
Basically, alignment was originally designed as "sides", as implied by the name: You had Lawful, which was the side of civilization/good, you had Chaotic, which was the side of barbarism/evil, and you had the neutrals.
And in the very beginning, when D&D was mainly a smaller-scale type of wargaming, that was ok. But then they added the rogue, and skills, and an overall more complex approach than "kill the other side", and overall made it more simulationist. While that has greatly enriched the game (I certainly wouldn't have it any other way), it did mean that the idea of alignment as it was really didn't work any more; it simply can't the unprincipled mercenary who helps the forces of Law because they pay more, or the vigilante who sides with Law but breaks all the rules in order to do so.
So they changed the system, and made it more versatile and more about personality type than morality-based sides. But in the process, each alignment was made to be based on several not-closely-connected factors; when those factors split from each other, you get confusion and debate.
Thus, it seems to me that an alignment rework, in order to be a proper successor to the original alignment system and still work, must fulfill the following criteria:
1. It must clearly divide people up. Everyone should belong to exactly one alignment (possibly including "unaligned" or "neutral"), and there should be concrete rules by which a particular person can be categorized in terms of alignment.
2. It must be a potential source of conflict. Any two different alignments (other than "unaligned") should at least potentially have criticisms of each other to the point of using violence over the matter.
So..given these criteria, what are some ideas for various alignment systems (or even just collections of alignments)?