PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Can You Run A Game Without "Alignments"



Cap'n Gravelock
2018-04-21, 02:17 AM
Hey everyone, been making a chronicle to run with friends for some time now.

Some of them are kinda new to the game and thought that the alignment system is kind of confusing and difficult to follow. The good news is that we already homebrewed our own setting distinct from D&D or Pathfinder which our game is based on. However, I'm still curious whether or not alignment has other properties that make it too important to discard in a good game.

OldTrees1
2018-04-21, 02:23 AM
Yes.

Although, you can expect players and characters to still have beliefs about moral/immoral and act upon those beliefs. It is rare to avoid that influence.

JoeJ
2018-04-21, 02:35 AM
If you're using D&D 3.5/PF rules, alignment has specific game effects that you need to look out for. If you're playing D&D 5e, not so much. In that version, alignment is basically just a tool to help define your personality. If you're following the rules of any other game besides D&D/PF, alignment probably isn't even a thing at all.

Elysiume
2018-04-21, 03:29 AM
Pathfinder has alternate rules/recommendations for running a game without alignment (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/removingAlignment.html), if you want something to start with.

Satinavian
2018-04-21, 05:09 AM
It is easy to play without it. It is what most systems do. D&D has it mostly due to tradition.

Anonymouswizard
2018-04-21, 05:12 AM
However, I'm still curious whether or not alignment has other properties that make it too important to discard in a good game.

To start, almost any game that isn't D&D doesn't feature alignments (they are exceptions, but the point is not having alignment is the norm). It adds little to the game that simply defining your character's ideals or beliefs doesn't.

So the answer is that a good (or great) game doesn't need alignment. Many of us play games that don't mention it, or any similar system. I have occasionally played games with an honour system or something similar, but that easily gets complicated (does it measure how honourably you act, or how honourably you're perceived to act? I tend to go for the latter, but few games make it clear). There's also sanity systems, the merits of which we can discuss on their own.

That said, in 3.X you've got to work out how to replace alignment rules-wise if you're not using it. I think the simplest I've seen is that alignment is based on plane of origin, so Celestials ping as good, Demons ping as Chaotic and Evil, but every human pings as Neutral.

Alignment is also a useful tool for new players who are character building, but only if they 'get' alignment. In your case forgetting about it seems simple enough.

Mastikator
2018-04-21, 07:16 AM
PCs don't benefit from having alignments so you can skip all mortals having alignments.
Spells might benefit from having an "evil" or "good" tag, but you're better off replacing it with a faction system, instead of "smite evil" it's "smite member of opposing faction/supernatural entity forbidden by my faction".
Outsiders and cosmology can also be factions instead of alignments, factions can have ideologies.

Alignments are just a training wheel that quickly becomes an obstacle you have to work around.

dps
2018-04-21, 10:46 AM
PCs don't benefit from having alignments so you can skip all mortals having alignments.
Spells might benefit from having an "evil" or "good" tag, but you're better off replacing it with a faction system, instead of "smite evil" it's "smite member of opposing faction/supernatural entity forbidden by my faction".
Outsiders and cosmology can also be factions instead of alignments, factions can have ideologies.

Alignments are just a training wheel that quickly becomes an obstacle you have to work around.

I strongly disagree with most of this, but will agree that alignments are a tool, and not every tool; whether they're a good tool or not depends on how you use them. Either way, they're not an indispensable tool, so you don't have to use them, and indeed, as pointed out, many RPG systems that aren't DnD or based off of DnD don't use them. If you want to dispose of them in a game system that does use them, you'll likely need to make some adjustments to other rules, but exactly what needs to be adjusted depends on the specific system, the setting, and your and your players intent/preferences.

FreddyNoNose
2018-04-21, 11:39 AM
Hey everyone, been making a chronicle to run with friends for some time now.

Some of them are kinda new to the game and thought that the alignment system is kind of confusing and difficult to follow. The good news is that we already homebrewed our own setting distinct from D&D or Pathfinder which our game is based on. However, I'm still curious whether or not alignment has other properties that make it too important to discard in a good game.

Are you the GM? Yes, do whatever you want. Why would you think you can?

Are you a player in a game where the GM is doing this? Yes, he can do that.

Honest Tiefling
2018-04-21, 12:28 PM
Only use for alignment I've used is to make sure everyone is on the same page in terms of tone and characters do we don't have the cutthroat necromancer in the same party as the paladin...Again. If you feel this is a good use of alignment for you, I suggest simply stating that your game is a game of heroes/anti-heroes/anti-villains/villains and to be clear on the tone you want.

Also, if your setting has no universal cosmic forces of good, evil, law, chaos or whatever, then alignment makes no sense in your setting and feel free to ditch it. Mechanics based on that assume that this weird force exists, so it gets weird really fast if there is no 'good' to detect for instance.

RazorChain
2018-04-21, 10:48 PM
No, it is totally impossible. Even though you try to run the game without alignment, alignments still exists.

It's like saying you are going to run a game without good and evil, it can't be done. Morality will always exist in some shape and form and we all know and recognize alignment as the ultimate yardstick of morality.

Knaight
2018-04-21, 11:57 PM
Extracting them from the mechanics of some editions of some games can take a bit of doing. There are certain extant published settings which would fall apart a bit without them (that you're clearly not using). Those two reasons form a pretty much comprehensive list of difficulties with running a game without alignment; it's not a necessary mechanic by any means.

Nifft
2018-04-22, 12:47 AM
I've done it, so I suspect it's possible to do. :smallcool:

The set of overly-specific protection spells Protection from Evil / Good / Chaos / Law / Annoying Neutrals / Sea Gulls / Mondays becomes a single spell (Protect Person, which is like Charm Person except nicer for humanoids instead of worse). It protects against summoned enemy monsters of any type, and Outsiders of any type. It protects against mental control from any source. Etc.

Magic Circle applies to any Outsider / Elemental / etc.


I would suggest keeping [Evil] and [Good] as descriptors for Outsiders, and treating spellcasters who delve too far into spells with those tags to eventually get a descriptor. That's how you'd get a good Necromancer who pings as [Evil]. Conversely, if you use unaligned spells to do horrible things, you might get a wicked Enchanter who does not ping as [Evil].

Telonius
2018-04-22, 01:02 AM
It gets slightly tricky if the character in question gets his power from another entity. Something like a 3.5 Cleric, if the fluff is that they're asking their deity for power, it would make some amount of sense for the deity to care how that power is going to be used. In 3.5, they handle that in kind of a shorthand, in that Clerics can't be more than one step in alignment away from the deity, and can't grossly violate the deity's priorities. If you remove alignment altogether, you've removed the shorthand. The result would probably be pretty close to the same, but it would be more individualized to the deity rather than to the alignment. Obad-Hai will keep providing the spells as long as the Cleric doesn't start regularly burning down forests.

Kaptin Keen
2018-04-22, 01:56 AM
It's all I ever do. Alignments are a hindrance at best, and a bad excuse at worst.

Cap'n Gravelock
2018-04-22, 06:21 AM
Only use for alignment I've used is to make sure everyone is on the same page in terms of tone and characters do we don't have the cutthroat necromancer in the same party as the paladin...Again. If you feel this is a good use of alignment for you, I suggest simply stating that your game is a game of heroes/anti-heroes/anti-villains/villains and to be clear on the tone you want.

Also, if your setting has no universal cosmic forces of good, evil, law, chaos or whatever, then alignment makes no sense in your setting and feel free to ditch it. Mechanics based on that assume that this weird force exists, so it gets weird really fast if there is no 'good' to detect for instance.


No, it is totally impossible. Even though you try to run the game without alignment, alignments still exists.

It's like saying you are going to run a game without good and evil, it can't be done. Morality will always exist in some shape and form and we all know and recognize alignment as the ultimate yardstick of morality.


PCs don't benefit from having alignments so you can skip all mortals having alignments.
Spells might benefit from having an "evil" or "good" tag, but you're better off replacing it with a faction system, instead of "smite evil" it's "smite member of opposing faction/supernatural entity forbidden by my faction".
Outsiders and cosmology can also be factions instead of alignments, factions can have ideologies.

Alignments are just a training wheel that quickly becomes an obstacle you have to work around.


I strongly disagree with most of this, but will agree that alignments are a tool, and not every tool; whether they're a good tool or not depends on how you use them. Either way, they're not an indispensable tool, so you don't have to use them, and indeed, as pointed out, many RPG systems that aren't DnD or based off of DnD don't use them. If you want to dispose of them in a game system that does use them, you'll likely need to make some adjustments to other rules, but exactly what needs to be adjusted depends on the specific system, the setting, and your and your players intent/preferences.


Are you the GM? Yes, do whatever you want. Why would you think you can?

Are you a player in a game where the GM is doing this? Yes, he can do that.


Extracting them from the mechanics of some editions of some games can take a bit of doing. There are certain extant published settings which would fall apart a bit without them (that you're clearly not using). Those two reasons form a pretty much comprehensive list of difficulties with running a game without alignment; it's not a necessary mechanic by any means.


I've done it, so I suspect it's possible to do. :smallcool:

The set of overly-specific protection spells Protection from Evil / Good / Chaos / Law / Annoying Neutrals / Sea Gulls / Mondays becomes a single spell (Protect Person, which is like Charm Person except nicer for humanoids instead of worse). It protects against summoned enemy monsters of any type, and Outsiders of any type. It protects against mental control from any source. Etc.

Magic Circle applies to any Outsider / Elemental / etc.


I would suggest keeping [Evil] and [Good] as descriptors for Outsiders, and treating spellcasters who delve too far into spells with those tags to eventually get a descriptor. That's how you'd get a good Necromancer who pings as [Evil]. Conversely, if you use unaligned spells to do horrible things, you might get a wicked Enchanter who does not ping as [Evil].


It gets slightly tricky if the character in question gets his power from another entity. Something like a 3.5 Cleric, if the fluff is that they're asking their deity for power, it would make some amount of sense for the deity to care how that power is going to be used. In 3.5, they handle that in kind of a shorthand, in that Clerics can't be more than one step in alignment away from the deity, and can't grossly violate the deity's priorities. If you remove alignment altogether, you've removed the shorthand. The result would probably be pretty close to the same, but it would be more individualized to the deity rather than to the alignment. Obad-Hai will keep providing the spells as long as the Cleric doesn't start regularly burning down forests.


It's all I ever do. Alignments are a hindrance at best, and a bad excuse at worst.

Thank you everyone, I've already made a post in Homebrew called [Soulfinder] Changes which addresses the changes I've made so far. It essentially sums up the issues I have that me and my players are trying to solve.

FabulousFizban
2018-04-22, 05:39 PM
more like can you run a game WITH alignments, amirite?

Pex
2018-04-22, 08:03 PM
You can, but be prepared to deal with players who want to play murdering thieving psychopaths. They would have anyway saying their character is Chaotic Neutral to give themselves license to do what they want and not have to deal with the stigma of an E on their character sheet, but without alignments they are freed from any supposed restrictions on behavior. It's cynical, but it's true. They won't necessarily disrupt the game, but campaign plot goals are an afterthought.

This is not universally true of every player. I only mean keep a look out for these type of players and have a way to deal with it. They'll want to grab anything they think is treasure and betray NPCs they're supposed to help. Gygax help you if they have a bag of holding.

Why yes I do have one of those fellow players in a game I'm currently in. Why do you ask?

Elysiume
2018-04-22, 08:05 PM
You can, but be prepared to deal with players who want to play murdering thieving psychopaths. They would have anyway saying their character is Chaotic Neutral to give themselves license to do what they want and not have to deal with the stigma of an E on their character sheet, but without alignments they are freed from any supposed restrictions on behavior. It's cynical, but it's true. They won't necessarily disrupt the game, but campaign plot goals are an afterthought.

This is not universally true of every player. I only mean keep a look out for these type of players and have a way to deal with it. They'll want to grab anything they think is treasure and betray NPCs they're supposed to help. Gygax help you if they have a bag of holding.

Why yes I do have one of those fellow players in a game I'm currently in. Why do you ask?Not seeing what this issue has to do with alignment. The kind of player who'll commit countless violent crimes while insisting they aren't evil won't behave any differently if the alignment box on their sheet says "CN" or "n/a."

Pex
2018-04-22, 11:57 PM
Not seeing what this issue has to do with alignment. The kind of player who'll commit countless violent crimes while insisting they aren't evil won't behave any differently if the alignment box on their sheet says "CN" or "n/a."

The lack of alignment would be the excuse for their behavior, using the DM's own campaign set-up against him.

Knaight
2018-04-23, 01:02 AM
The lack of alignment would be the excuse for their behavior, using the DM's own campaign set-up against him.

In my experience these players are vastly more common in games with alignments than those without.

Arbane
2018-04-23, 01:12 AM
You can, but be prepared to deal with players who want to play murdering thieving psychopaths.

D&D-style murderhoboing is not restricted by alignment.



They would have anyway saying their character is Chaotic Neutral to give themselves license to do what they want and not have to deal with the stigma of an E on their character sheet, but without alignments they are freed from any supposed restrictions on behavior.


Buwhah? You're saying that without writing 'I do whatever I want' on the sheet, they'll do whatever they want?

Have you really never played a game without D&D alignments? It's not like there's any shortage of them.


In my experience these players are vastly more common in games with alignments than those without.


Ohhhh yeah. The ever-popular (with themselves and nobody else) Just Playing My Character jerk. "But I wrote 'Evil' on my character sheet, I had to set the orphanage on fire!"

Mordaedil
2018-04-23, 01:50 AM
I dunno why people think alignments are such a difficult sell.

Just ask your players if they consider personal liberty or a lawful society are better, and if they'd be willing to give up their own for others or if they only look out for number one.

If they consider anything in between or neither, they are neutral.

Delta
2018-04-23, 02:28 AM
I dunno why people think alignments are such a difficult sell.

I can only speak for myself, but I dislike alignments very much, so selling me on them is rather difficult. I'm very much in favor of dumping them altogether in any game.

Selene Sparks
2018-04-23, 02:34 AM
No, it is totally impossible. Even though you try to run the game without alignment, alignments still exists.Does it, though?

Alignment, in the meaning being used by D&D, is a position of agreement or alliance. "Alignment," in that sense, when it comes to the cosmic morality forms, is not, in fact, necessary. Who's to say that my idea of "good" matches up with some super LG angel's, after all?

It's like saying you are going to run a game without good and evil, it can't be done. Morality will always exist in some shape and form and we all know and recognize alignment as the ultimate yardstick of morality.You're conflating morality with alignment. And your statement on alignment being the "ultimate yardstick" is, in fact, the problem. A system with objective morality is both bizarre and bad from a game design perspective. Not only is the RAW text in D&D almost always nonsensical at best, there's no reason to believe that everyone at the table has the exact same set of values, and a disagreement there can go bad places.

In other words, Alignment only really works when either everyone at the table subscribes to the exact same set of values and likes the idea that those sets of values are objectively true with no ambiguity at all, or you want to roll with the idea that cosmic-level Good and Evil are entirely divorced from human ideas, and essentially boil down to the color of your laser beams, rather than any actually reasonable ethical system.

To the OP: As everyone else said, you can but it takes work. The simplest solution I've found is that alignment is simply the color of your laser beams, so people who aren't hooked into some cosmic force, that is clerics or outsiders mostly, register as neutral for alignment-based effects, but cutting out every alignment-based spell and effect works just as well. That said, doing it either way is a vastly superior option, IMO, to leaving alignment in, for obvious reasons.

Delta
2018-04-23, 02:55 AM
The lack of alignment would be the excuse for their behavior, using the DM's own campaign set-up against him.

If alignment is the only thing keeping your players from murderhoboing, you have a player problem, not an alignment problem.

Mordaedil
2018-04-23, 05:39 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I dislike alignments very much, so selling me on them is rather difficult. I'm very much in favor of dumping them altogether in any game.

Hot take, alignments are descriptive, not prescriptive. They don't inform you on how your character will act, but how he might act. If you use them any other way, they immediately became straight-jackets that enforce a certain way of roleplaying.

Then again, if you ask me, I don't have much a problem with alignments, but I have a huge pet peevee with alignment restrictions, such as bards and barbarians must be non-lawful or monks must always remain lawful. They should perhaps be the ideal of the class, but I don't like tying class abilities to behavior of character.

Corneel
2018-04-23, 07:47 AM
Then again, if you ask me, I don't have much a problem with alignments, but I have a huge pet peevee with alignment restrictions, such as bards and barbarians must be non-lawful or monks must always remain lawful. They should perhaps be the ideal of the class, but I don't like tying class abilities to behavior of character.
That can be handled with codes of conduct in case the source of power/abilities truly requires it. A code of conduct can moreover be much more interesting to play to and better targeted fluff-wise than generic alignment.

Eg a monk might need to follow certain life regimen in order to access his Qi. So his code might include thing that you wouldn't find under Good, Evil, Law or Chaos, like avoiding alcohol and meat, regular meditation, etc.

Pex
2018-04-23, 08:00 AM
In my experience these players are vastly more common in games with alignments than those without.


If alignment is the only thing keeping your players from murderhoboing, you have a player problem, not an alignment problem.

No kidding.

The point is lack of alignment just becomes another excuse which can be harder to refute because it's the DM's own premise working against him. Such a player hears "no alignment" and thinks it's DM permission for anything goes.

Knaight
2018-04-23, 09:09 AM
No kidding.

The point is lack of alignment just becomes another excuse which can be harder to refute because it's the DM's own premise working against him. Such a player hears "no alignment" and thinks it's DM permission for anything goes.

Maybe this applies to stripping alignments out of a game that has them, but that implicit permission definitely doesn't exist in the context of alignment just not being there. Even in the excision case I haven't seen this - the common reading seems to be that alignment is getting pulled at least partially because the game will focus more on nuanced conflicts and less on the simple adventure that black and white morality facilitates, which tends to get in the way of violent caricature PCs.

Delta
2018-04-23, 09:24 AM
No kidding.

The point is lack of alignment just becomes another excuse which can be harder to refute because it's the DM's own premise working against him. Such a player hears "no alignment" and thinks it's DM permission for anything goes.

So how about you explicitly tell them "No murderhoboing please", is that really that strange a thing to ask from friends playing a game together?

Pex
2018-04-23, 12:37 PM
So how about you explicitly tell them "No murderhoboing please", is that really that strange a thing to ask from friends playing a game together?

It's not, and that's the point. It's not enough to say it's a no alignment game. You need to say that despite it being a no alignment game being a donkey cavity to other PCs and non-enemy NPCs is still not permitted, allowing for that NPC who wasn't supposed to be an enemy a player Honest True doesn't like anyway.

Max_Killjoy
2018-04-23, 12:40 PM
If alignment is the only thing keeping your players from murderhoboing, you have a player problem, not an alignment problem.


EXACTLY.

In general, one can't solve table-level problems with game-level and/or fiction-level elements.


Also, as a general response to the thread -- "no alignment" does not mean "no laws" or "no morality".

Arbane
2018-04-23, 04:24 PM
There's at least one OD&D retroclone I've seen where 'alignment' is used soley to indicate which Elder God likes your character the most, and has zero intersection with human morality. I like that.


EXACTLY.
Also, as a general response to the thread -- "no alignment" does not mean "no laws" or "no morality".

But without alignment, how will the players know which sapient beings it's morally acceptable to murder on sight?



In general, one can't solve table-level problems with game-level and/or fiction-level elements.


Yep. But I'm not sure Gygax & Co had figured that out back in 197whatever - I read somewhere that part of the reason they came up with Law/Neutral/Chaos alignment (Gygax was a fan of Michael Moorcock's works, Good and Evil got added in later) was to TRY to discourage PCs stealing from each other. Didn't work out too well.

Frozen_Feet
2018-04-23, 05:28 PM
PCs stealing from other PCs isn't necessarily a table-level problem though, as the PCs are game constructs. In-game penalties do affect in-game behaviour.

In any case, I have spotted no difference in player propensity towards murderhoboing based on whether a game has alignment or not. What I have spotted is that bad consequences for murderhoboism do lessen the propensity expect when players think said bad consequences are entertaining.

To address the titular question: obviously you can play a game without D&D-style alignment. What people often miss that many non-D&D games still have their own alignment systems. Call of Cthulhu keeps track of how aligned a character is with mental health and various mythos entities; World of Darkness games keep track of how your character is aligned towards human virtues versus monstrous ones; Paranoia tracks your standing towards the Computer and various conspiracies; so on and so forth.

While playing without D&D alignment is trivial, playing without any sort of alignment is significantly harder: it requires the player characters to not be beholden to any factions, ideals nor social standards. Even games with no explicit alignment mechanics have the GM implicitly tracking their standing in relation to various in-game factions etc.. You can play even without that, but it will start to look more particular than people often think.

Arbane
2018-04-23, 06:11 PM
To address the titular question: obviously you can play a game without D&D-style alignment. What people often miss that many non-D&D games still have their own alignment systems. Call of Cthulhu keeps track of how aligned a character is with mental health and various mythos entities; World of Darkness games keep track of how your character is aligned towards human virtues versus monstrous ones; Paranoia tracks your standing towards the Computer and various conspiracies; so on and so forth.


I think you're overstretching the word 'alignment' here. I'm mildly surprised you didn't try to claim that your hit point total shows how 'aligned' someone is with being alive instead of dead, which is about as meaningful as your chosen examples, as all of them are numbers that cause you to lose the game when you hit zero.

Frozen_Feet
2018-04-23, 06:37 PM
It's not unsupported at all: the relevant meanings of alignment I'm looking at:

"alliance or union with a party, cause, etc."

and

"(Psychology) psychol. integration or harmonization of aims, practices, etc within a group"

and

"(Psychology) psychol. identification with or matching of the behaviour, thoughts, etc. of another person."

It should not be hard at all to see how the given examples fit these. Paranoia is about parties, CoC and WoD are about psychological identification with humanity (and I could add Cyberpunk to that list just to spite you).

Kelb_Panthera
2018-04-24, 01:01 AM
Hey everyone, been making a chronicle to run with friends for some time now.

Some of them are kinda new to the game and thought that the alignment system is kind of confusing and difficult to follow. The good news is that we already homebrewed our own setting distinct from D&D or Pathfinder which our game is based on. However, I'm still curious whether or not alignment has other properties that make it too important to discard in a good game.

Alignment can be dumped pretty trivially. There are a few types of stories that get tougher to tell but they don't seem to be terribly popular so I wouldn't worry about it.


more like can you run a game WITH alignments, amirite?

Also, yes. I do so by default. Unless a player wants to engage with it, alignment tends to stay in the background but it's always there and I'm willing to use it if and when I feel is appropriate.

RazorChain
2018-04-24, 05:08 AM
Does it, though?

Alignment, in the meaning being used by D&D, is a position of agreement or alliance. "Alignment," in that sense, when it comes to the cosmic morality forms, is not, in fact, necessary. Who's to say that my idea of "good" matches up with some super LG angel's, after all?
You're conflating morality with alignment. And your statement on alignment being the "ultimate yardstick" is, in fact, the problem. A system with objective morality is both bizarre and bad from a game design perspective. Not only is the RAW text in D&D almost always nonsensical at best, there's no reason to believe that everyone at the table has the exact same set of values, and a disagreement there can go bad places.

In other words, Alignment only really works when either everyone at the table subscribes to the exact same set of values and likes the idea that those sets of values are objectively true with no ambiguity at all, or you want to roll with the idea that cosmic-level Good and Evil are entirely divorced from human ideas, and essentially boil down to the color of your laser beams, rather than any actually reasonable ethical system.

To the OP: As everyone else said, you can but it takes work. The simplest solution I've found is that alignment is simply the color of your laser beams, so people who aren't hooked into some cosmic force, that is clerics or outsiders mostly, register as neutral for alignment-based effects, but cutting out every alignment-based spell and effect works just as well. That said, doing it either way is a vastly superior option, IMO, to leaving alignment in, for obvious reasons.

NO, NO, NO!

If Gary Gygax put it in then it must be needed. Alignment can't be taken out and we need it

Just think of Gygax as the wise founding father of Roleplaying and Alignment is the second amendment

How other systems fail in this regard isn't our concern.

GungHo
2018-04-24, 10:35 AM
Yes, you can. You do need to figure out what you're going to do with some things that rely on alignment to tell you what they do (like Protect from/Detect Evil) or what things from places that are objectively good/evil (like demons and angels) mean in the context of the game mechanics, because it's written into a lot of things, but it's not insurmountable.

Nightcanon
2018-04-24, 05:31 PM
No, it is totally impossible. Even though you try to run the game without alignment, alignments still exists.

It's like saying you are going to run a game without good and evil, it can't be done. Morality will always exist in some shape and form and we all know and recognize alignment as the ultimate yardstick of morality.

Strange comment. Good and Evil may exist, as they do in real life, but why would you need a label attached to every being in the game? D&D is tricky because alignment triggers in-game effects (holy swords and the like), and removing them can unbalance things, but that's game mechanics, not morality.

Edit: though your post a couple above this one now makes me think I may have fallen foul of Pope's law...

RazorChain
2018-04-25, 02:52 AM
Strange comment. Good and Evil may exist, as they do in real life, but why would you need a label attached to every being in the game? D&D is tricky because alignment triggers in-game effects (holy swords and the like), and removing them can unbalance things, but that's game mechanics, not morality.

Edit: though your post a couple above this one now makes me think I may have fallen foul of Pope's law...

I'm so evil that I don't even put it in blue because it ain't sarcasm. We need a color for satire 😊

Spore
2018-04-25, 04:08 AM
So far i feel alignment has never helped and oftlen sparked particularly nasty and pointless conflicts at my tables.

Mordaedil
2018-04-25, 07:03 AM
I'm so evil that I don't even put it in blue because it ain't sarcasm. We need a color for satire ��

These forums never cease to amuse me with how hard of a time people have with this. Managed for decades to tell irony apart from seriousness without blue text.

It helps though.

2D8HP
2018-04-25, 07:20 AM
These forums never cease to amuse me with how hard of a time people have with this. Managed for decades to tell irony apart from seriousness without blue text.

It helps though.


Eh, I don't like bluetext unless the setup is long and I don't see the blue until I scroll far enough down, as suprise helps with the humor

Anonymouswizard
2018-04-25, 08:03 AM
There's at least one OD&D retroclone I've seen where 'alignment' is used soley to indicate which Elder God likes your character the most, and has zero intersection with human morality. I like that.

I personally like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, a B/X (or BECM, not quite certain) retroclone. Here's the section on Alginment.


Select Alignment
Alignment is a character’s orientation on a cosmic scale. It has nothing to do with a character’s allegiances, personality, morality, or actions. Alignments will mostly be used to determine how a character is affected by certain magical elements in the game. The three alignments are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

Lawful
The universe has an ultimate, irrefutable truth, and a flawless, unchanging plan towards which all events inevitably march. As time moves on, all distraction and resistance to this plan falters until everything is in its perfect state forevermore, without alteration or the possibility of possibilities. Those who are Lawful in alignment are part of an inevitable destiny, but have no knowledge of what that destiny is and what their role will be in fulfilling it. So they are forever looking for signs and omens to show them their proper way.

Chaotic
The howling maelstrom beyond the veil of shadows and existence is the source of all magic. It bends and tears the fabric of the universe; it destroys all that seeks to be permanent. It allows great miracles as reality alters at the whim of those that can call the eldritch forces, and it causes great catastrophe as beings we call demons (and far, far worse) rip into our reality and lay waste to all. Everything that is made will be unmade. Nothing exists, and nothing can ever exist, not in a way that the cosmos can ever recognize. Those who are Chaotic in alignment are touched by magic, and consider the world in terms of ebbing and flowing energy, of eternal tides washing away the sand castles that great kings and mighty gods build for themselves. Many mortals who are so aligned desperately wish they were not.

Neutral
To be Neutral is merely to exist between the forces of Law and Chaos. Mortal beings exist as Neutral creatures, and remain so throughout their existence unless taking specific steps (often unwittingly) to align themselves otherwise. In fact, most beings would be rather displeased with the notion of pure Law and Chaos, as they are defined in alignment terms. Even most who would claim allegiance to Law or Chaos are not actually Lawful or Chaotic. In the real world, every human being that has ever existed has been Neutral.

Clerics must be Lawful. Elves and Magic-Users must be Chaotic. All others are free to choose their alignment.

So yeah, alignment is a mixture of who's pulling your strings and how you perceive the world. We're also pretty much told that Clerical magic is Lawful and Magic-User magic is chaotic, and that most PCs should probably be neutral in a realistic setting.


To address the titular question: obviously you can play a game without D&D-style alignment. What people often miss that many non-D&D games still have their own alignment systems. Call of Cthulhu keeps track of how aligned a character is with mental health and various mythos entities; World of Darkness games keep track of how your character is aligned towards human virtues versus monstrous ones; Paranoia tracks your standing towards the Computer and various conspiracies; so on and so forth.

From my collection, I have games with alignment systems, games with morality systems, and games with honour systems. Oh, and games with repuation systems. Probably makes up a bit under half my library in total. The vast majority of games actually limit alignment to optional disadvantages, mainly codes of conduct and ties to organisations. I will agree that Vampire's Humanity system is essentially alignment under a different name, as are most of the other 'meters' in Chronicles of Darkness (although generally referring to a different thing than human morality)

One of my favourites is Victoriana, which directly ties Alignment in with how Fate Points work and how adept you are with magic or technology. being aligned with Order makes magic harder for your and causes Fate Points to give more automatic successes, while being aligned with Chaos makes using and making technology harder (the dividing line seems roughly to be 'does it have a bunch of moving parts') and gives extra dice with Fate Points. As a bonus it mentions that historically silver or magic has been the only way to hurt demons, but reports are coming in of guns doing so (because guns are aligned with Order). Plus alignment is eight levels on each side with a middle '0'.

Whether Sanity systems, Honour systems, and Reputation systems are alignment is debatable. The first is much closer than the latter two, which deal more in perceptions than reality.

aaron819
2018-05-16, 03:18 PM
Yes. Almost every single RPG that isn't D&D doesn't have alignment, and it works perfectly fine.

Kelb_Panthera
2018-05-16, 09:13 PM
Yes. Almost every single RPG that isn't D&D doesn't have alignment, and it works perfectly fine.

Refuted by a quote from the rulebook of another game in the post just before yours.

2D8HP
2018-05-16, 09:31 PM
I personally like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, a B/X (or BECM, not quite certain) retroclone...


I agree with you completely AW!

And what's great is that LotFP books are on the shelves at two of the three FLGS that I frequent.

I thought that the old Stormbringer RPG did Law vs. Chaos very well, both mechanically and "fluff-wise" (of course the lore was directly from one of two writers who inspired the D&D and the Warhammer's alignment system).

Traveller didn't have alignment AFAICR, Pendragon has different cultural traits depending on the PC's religion including a set for "Evil" (NPC's only).

Different systems for different settings.

RazorChain
2018-05-16, 10:28 PM
Yes. Almost every single RPG that isn't D&D doesn't have alignment, and it works perfectly fine.

Didn't we cover this already? Gygax says no.

JoeJ
2018-05-16, 10:36 PM
Didn't we cover this already? Gygax says no.

When did Gygax become an authority on RPGs that aren't D&D?

Knaight
2018-05-17, 12:36 AM
Didn't we cover this already? Gygax says no.
Ignoring Gygax's preferences was a key part of the development of even early D&D (see: Arneson, Dave), let alone every other RPG. This is without getting into how Gygax's own preferences were far from constant.


Refuted by a quote from the rulebook of another game in the post just before yours.
"Almost" was the first word of a sentence there. There's tons of games overall, and "almost all" games not having alignment can still allow a couple hundred that contain it.

Satinavian
2018-05-17, 03:03 AM
To address the titular question: obviously you can play a game without D&D-style alignment. What people often miss that many non-D&D games still have their own alignment systems. Call of Cthulhu keeps track of how aligned a character is with mental health and various mythos entities; World of Darkness games keep track of how your character is aligned towards human virtues versus monstrous ones; Paranoia tracks your standing towards the Computer and various conspiracies; so on and so forth.True for WoD, at least after they introduced different paths to enlightenment representing completely different moral systems you could try to actively pursue. But the base version of humanity or whatever doesn't really qualify. Nor does CoCs sanity. Both are meant as a means to make character development into something that is not only about increase in power but also about invetably sliding into doom as fitting the intended narratives. Both are mechanically more similar to Ars Magicas twilight. (And yes, i know that WoD never worked as intended and allowed itself to be played as a superhero game instead of an angsty tragedy game. And that authors complained a lot about that.)

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-17, 08:28 AM
Ignoring Gygax's preferences was a key part of the development of even early D&D (see: Arneson, Dave), let alone every other RPG. This is without getting into how Gygax's own preferences were far from constant.


And then there's the fact that Gygax's preferences stopped mattering even for D&D a long time ago...




"Almost" was the first word of a sentence there. There's tons of games overall, and "almost all" games not having alignment can still allow a couple hundred that contain it.


Yeap -- if there are 100 things and someone says "almost none of them have X", finding 5 things that do have X does not disprove that statement.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-17, 08:38 AM
True for WoD, at least after they introduced different paths to enlightenment representing completely different moral systems you could try to actively pursue. But the base version of humanity or whatever doesn't really qualify. Nor does CoCs sanity. Both are meant as a means to make character development into something that is not only about increase in power but also about invetably sliding into doom as fitting the intended narratives. Both are mechanically more similar to Ars Magicas twilight.


Exactly -- "Humanity", "Santity", etc, aren't really Alignment in the D&D sense.




(And yes, i know that WoD never worked as intended and allowed itself to be played as a superhero game instead of an angsty tragedy game. And that authors complained a lot about that.)


Their smug and condescending complaints went from annoying at first, to being a case where someone's tears make for a delicious beverage.

Overall, they were so concerned with their games being "meaningful", and "artistic", and "transgressive", that they often forgot the part where games are supposed to be enjoyable.

GloatingSwine
2018-05-17, 12:45 PM
There's at least one OD&D retroclone I've seen where 'alignment' is used soley to indicate which Elder God likes your character the most, and has zero intersection with human morality. I like that.

I propose the alignment axes be renamed to the Cake vs. Cookies axis and the Chocolate vs. Cheese axis.

This allows a traditional nine point grid of mutually exclusive options with the traditionally boring True Neutral in the middle.

It is, however, somewhat inconvenient at producing acronyms.

Corneel
2018-05-17, 02:15 PM
I propose the alignment axes be renamed to the Cake vs. Cookies axis and the Chocolate vs. Cheese axis.
Where does that leave those that like to combine Nutella with Gouda on their sliced bread?

RazorChain
2018-05-17, 07:04 PM
So far i feel alignment has never helped and oftlen sparked particularly nasty and pointless conflicts at my tables.

That is what we call Drama. All it tells us that Gygax in his infinite wisdom put alignment into the game for dramatic purposes.

RazorChain
2018-05-17, 07:09 PM
Ignoring Gygax's preferences was a key part of the development of even early D&D (see: Arneson, Dave), let alone every other RPG. This is without getting into how Gygax's own preferences were far from constant

I have a hard time understanding your gibberish here. I speak lawful, are you writing in chaotic?

SaurOps
2018-05-18, 01:46 AM
True for WoD, at least after they introduced different paths to enlightenment representing completely different moral systems you could try to actively pursue. But the base version of humanity or whatever doesn't really qualify. Nor does CoCs sanity. Both are meant as a means to make character development into something that is not only about increase in power but also about invetably sliding into doom as fitting the intended narratives. Both are mechanically more similar to Ars Magicas twilight. (And yes, i know that WoD never worked as intended and allowed itself to be played as a superhero game instead of an angsty tragedy game. And that authors complained a lot about that.)

That was a Vampire problem. Werewolf had more of an elegant way to "ensure" this - give the characters some really big hammers and point them at a problem. The dilemmas in the use of power and the consequences that arise from it present themselves; Crinos form and Rage are an intoxicating rush, at least when you introduce house rules to control botching, so the end results feel a bit more organic.

(Also, while W:tA had The Litany and it was rather important, it had no meter stat to measure morality - so score another one for a code of conduct character description above a generic double axis of keywords.)

Anonymouswizard
2018-05-18, 05:54 AM
I agree with you completely AW!

And what's great is that LotFP books are on the shelves at two of the three FLGS that I frequent.

I thought that the old Stormbringer RPG did Law vs. Chaos very well, both mechanically and "fluff-wise" (of course the lore was directly from one of two writers who inspired the D&D and the Warhammer's alignment system).

Yeah, I've grown to really hate Good versus Evil alignment systems, but the Law/Chaos that has developed from Elric is much better on average. It also makes active neutrality make more sense, both Law and Chaos can be horrific if taken to extremes.

Note that my settings treat it slightly differently. Chaos creates, Law maintains, Neutral can do neither. The world needs both, but too much of either leads to either nothing new or nothing stable. Therefore balance is the highest good, but the universe must never be completely balanced.


Different systems for different settings.

But this is the really important thing.