PDA

View Full Version : Alignment- Do you use it and how?



Charles Phipps
2007-10-13, 01:07 PM
Everyone has their own take on the Alignment system and the 9 Alignments. How exactly do you use them and do you ever think that there might be a better way to use it?

Morty
2007-10-13, 01:14 PM
The best way to use alignment is not use it at all. However, it causes problems with spells, classes and creatures that are dependant on alignment, so I just tend to use alignment only when it's necessary and treat it very lightly and loosely. Alignment should be generic guideline, not straightjacket.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-13, 01:17 PM
The best way to use alignment is not use it at all.
Indeed. Furthermore, it only barely causes problems with "spells, classes, and creatures". Paladins do need some kind of honor code, but you need to discuss that anyway, because "be LG" means too many different things. Monks and barbs and so forth do not become unbalanced without their align restrictions.

For spells, simply ignore the [good] and [evil] (etc) descriptors, and there's only a handful of spells that mind otherwise (e.g. "protection from [chaos]") so just ignore those except for the part where they block mind control.

Kyeudo
2007-10-13, 02:31 PM
I declare how I measure alignment at the begining of the campaign, so everyone has a heads up on it. I also use a fairly loose definition that takes intent into account as a way to judge whether the action was Good or Evil, and uses method to judge the Law and Chaos axis.

I also keep alignment on the back burner. Alignment exists to allow for mechanical benefits and penalties when dealing with certain spells, items, and classes and as a guide to initial roleplay of a character, not to bite characters and justify stupid actions.

Most of the time, just let your players play, and then check what their alignments are when it finaly matters.

If you have a paladin, get with him and write out a custom code of conduct for his character. Use that to judge his paladin status by. Make sure its a decently tight code, but not one that will straitjacket his character.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-13, 03:12 PM
I use L/N/C Evil as a shorthand for "bad guy." It helps me keep in mind for characters that they're a bunch of scum and shouldn't be winning over the character's sympathy.

The rest is much more fluid for me.

KIDS
2007-10-13, 03:17 PM
I use it and think that some solid uses of the system are more or less dependent on it and I'm also fond of it; but that is only as long as people don't go Gestapo over it (i.e. "your character wouldn't do that he's lawful neutral" and similar bull)! If they do, I get mad, so honestly I'd be happier if alignments were not removed, but toned down to leave less room for the said Gestapo approach.

Swooper
2007-10-13, 03:57 PM
I dislike it, and de-emphasise it without getting rid of it completely (because I'm too lazy to figure out what it does to spells like Protection from [alignment descriptor] and so on).

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-10-13, 03:59 PM
I take the Eberron approach.

Leicontis
2007-10-13, 04:01 PM
In my campaigns, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are tangible forces of the cosmos. Alignment for non-outsiders is both a general descriptor of their personality and a measure of their actions. If a character that started out LG started acting less Lawful, I'd point out to the player that they were sliding towards NG, and that continuing down their current path could result in an alignment shift. I see nothing wrong with characters' alignments being fluid, though sometimes a cleric/paladin's patron deity might disapprove - in those cases, I warn the player strongly about the result of continuing with their activities. Overall, I haven't had to do a lot of this, because I've got very good players.

Nowhere Girl
2007-10-13, 04:13 PM
Alignment exists so that the GM can force all PC paladins to be lawful stupid or lose all of their powers. Everyone else is neutral greedy, and almost nobody ever plays paladins anyway, so that pretty much takes care of that.

slexlollar89
2007-10-13, 05:16 PM
I use alignment exactly how it is in real life. If someone beleives in universal moral laws (the curent system) that govern out actions, then thats whats good or bad, but if another player beleives that it is justification that dictates morality, then cool go with that.

If a player commits an moral act, I will say "oh your alignment shifts". but if he justifies his action (as good or evil or whatever) then I will take that into consideration. For this reason, good clerics can cast evil spells and vise versa.

However exalted and vile/corrupt spells are the exeption.

But alignment is very serious business that the gods (in other words the DM)
manage and dictate. good and its counterparts are tangible forces, but they are binding insofar as the individual wants them to be.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-13, 05:17 PM
The best way to use alignment is not use it at all. However, it causes problems with spells, classes and creatures that are dependant on alignment, so I just tend to use alignment only when it's necessary and treat it very lightly and loosely. Alignment should be generic guideline, not straightjacket.



"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other."

I don't see it as something to restrict players. As it says, it's a broad range, just a general assertion. I really don't see what is the problem people have with alignment.

In addition, few people are completely consistent.
That's how me and my group play it mostly. Choose your personality, then select which alignment fits it. If you start to act too much in other way, you change the personality. It's mostly a DM call in some cases, but it doesn't really cause much problems, except for some spells, and cleric powers.
Myself? I write LG, LN, NG, CG, CN, whatever, and that's it. If my character is Good, I write good in the sheet. If I start killing people for fun and profit, my DM will tell me to change to Neutral, and occasionally, evil. Same thing with Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic. The only purpose alignment have is to let the players and the DM know what he is, in a general way. People are reading too much into it.

The Neoclassic
2007-10-13, 05:19 PM
I dislike it, and de-emphasise it without getting rid of it completely (because I'm too lazy to figure out what it does to spells like Protection from [alignment descriptor] and so on).

Yeah, this is pretty much how I do it. Alignment in my setting is very fluid, representing general trends over a long time, and very few single actions alone can alter it.

ChaosDefender24
2007-10-13, 05:28 PM
I use it because it's reasonable enough. It mainly plays in how people roleplay and for things like unholy blight, but I'll let neutral casters cast evil spells unless it's really unnecessary (death by thorns)

Emperor Tippy
2007-10-13, 05:30 PM
I take the Eberron approach. The god's are to busy, they only stop giving their believers spells if it's brought to their attention and they decided to do somethign about it. I've had games where the head of the Church of Pelor is LE and Pelor didn't care until he started doing noticeable evil things (sacrificing worshipers to demons).

Alignment exists only for adjudication of spells and then it is a spot decision by me. I really hope 4E makes alignments and the gods like Eberron or dumps it entirely.

Draz74
2007-10-13, 05:49 PM
I'm working on replacing Alignment completely with a Taint system. Fiends, Fey, some necromancy (especially dealing with Undead), and the very worst acts of slaughter and hatred are sources of taint.

But woe unto the character who assumes that Taint always means evil. (The Fey, for example, can be benign or friendly even though they are inseparably connected with Taint.) The "celestials" or whatever they end up being called in this system are usually opposed to anything tainted, and sometimes they end up being more harmful than helpful in their single-mindedness.

Even more woe to the character who assumes anyone non-Tainted is trustworthy. The most sadistic, reprehensible assassin in the world, if he's careful, can be Untainted. Or even if he's not careful, he'll only be slightly Tainted as long as he doesn't make pacts with Demons or whatever (and such a level of "slightly tainted" could also be true of a noble team of adventurers who have been attacking a Tainted area).

While allowing room for potential ambiguity, this Taint system still allows for a mechanical implementation of alignment-related stuff. (Paladins get Smite Tainted Thing ... and Detect Taint ... that kind of stuff.)

Anxe
2007-10-13, 05:56 PM
I used to use alignment, but now all my players are actually playing Chaotic Neutral characters. One is even going for Lawful Evil. I don't really have to worry about whether the match their alignment anymore.

Edea
2007-10-13, 06:37 PM
I don't use it, at all, for purely anecdotal reasons. Both of the DMs I play with (when I'm not the DM myself) don't put much stock in it, either. Pallies are simply banned in all three scenarios. Other classes that previously had alignment restrictions no longer have them, not even clerics; you can be a cleric of the Sun God, eat kittens and babies for breakfast, and retain your class features. The "Ex-" entries are completely nullified.

It's a game, and I find the ever-ensuing arguments resulting from the use of such an infantile moral/ethical system to be extremely detrimental to enjoying that game. However, that's just me, many people seem to manage using it just fine (we never have, it -always- ended up being a SOC101 ****fest, -ALWAYS-, so we just dropped it altogether).

Golthur
2007-10-13, 07:30 PM
I always get rid of alignment, although I occasionally replace it with something else depending on the needs of the campaign setting.

If I need some sort of good-vs.-unholy-evil thing, I adopt a "taint" system similar to Draz74; that is, fiends, undead, and other "unnatural" horrors have it, most people don't.

If I need some sort of knight-vs.-saracen thing, I define "good" as those who are of your faith, and "evil" as those who are of enemy faiths. Then I have Mutual Paladin Smiting Goodness (TM, pat. pend.), where two paladins of opposing faiths use their holy powers against each other.

Jarlax
2007-10-13, 07:43 PM
i use it only as a system for excluding classes and disruptive PCs

if i have no evil in a game then that will exclude all classes that require an evil alignment or classes that have a feature you must be evil to use.

then if a PC is burning down cities and beating orphans regularly, throwing the PCs off track and getting them into trouble i can state that they are now alignment evil making their PC void for the Campaign, because he no longer meets the campaign requirements of non-evil PCs.

i will also switch it up with non-good restrictions on PCs. to run an evil campaign, to be fair to my PCs who want to play an Evil class or character.

it stops a lot of the party infighting by reducing the window of alignments available in one campaign and removing the polar opposdes of good and evil from a single party.

i used to have a horrible time with the Evil PC and the Paladin or LG cleric butting heads on every action or spell cast(because removing a persons heart with a spell is somehow "wrong"). particularly because the players running the paladins thought "detect evil" included "justifies killing other PCs even if they have done no harm to you" in the spell description. this is no longer an issue

Orzel
2007-10-13, 07:58 PM
I rarely use it. I use a weird taint system where each alignment has a color and they are painted on your soul. Then only certain actions can repaint your soul (change alignments).

Tequila Sunrise
2007-10-13, 08:10 PM
I've always used and never had a problem with alignment. But then again, I don't keep alignment tally cards for my players to track them.

"Well, Tommy the Paladin, that snide remark was your 176th chaotic act in this campaign. According to my calculations...your lawful percentage is now only 39.4%, which is under the 40% requirement for lawful good. You are now neutral good--bye bye paladin abilities."

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-13, 08:49 PM
I mostly use alignment as PHB says, loosely. I've never needed to use something else, since me and fellow players have a good concept of objective, non up-the-ass Exalted morality, so our characters ARE what the alignments say (NG is goodness unstopped by chaos and law, so it's for philantropists, people with clear views and reasons not to be LG or CG, etc., for example). This is the reason I started the "against exalted deeds" thread, because Exalted turns alignment into a straitjacket.

PS: I once had a borderline munchkin powergamer. He wanted to bring an Exalted char, so I asked for a backstory. His answer: "Wha?". After a quick explanation, he came off with a far-fetched story of sheer innocence and some other BS. So, I pitted his innocent char against a good but corrupted world, the one me and my fellow players game on, and put him against a very-hard-to-get-out-of-but-possible-if-you-have-good-RP-skills situation, in which his innocent char was forced to either sleep with a lusty hooker for crucial information, or not do it and cause great harm (win option: invent an excuse, such as him being an eunuch or whatever, and pass an arbitrarily low bluff check. Rp'ish). He decided to sleep with the whore, so he lost his exalted feats and status. Luckily, we didn't have to stand with him for more than that session: he showed he lacked the RP'er component our campaigns need.

TheOOB
2007-10-13, 09:24 PM
When someone gets hit by a holy smite, I make the judgment call if I think they should be hit for full damage, half damage, or no damage at all. If the fighter is using a holy sword, I may hint that it's starting to resist them over time, before making it drain levels on contact.

I don't use alignment, I simply decide if a character has been acting good/evil/lawful/chaotic when alignment based magic comes along.

horseboy
2007-10-13, 11:44 PM
Indeed. Furthermore, it only barely causes problems with "spells, classes, and creatures". Paladins do need some kind of honor code, but you need to discuss that anyway, because "be LG" means too many different things. Monks and barbs and so forth do not become unbalanced without their align restrictions.
In theory you could justify the Punisher as a LG Grey guard. I think even WotC is starting to realize what a pile of crap alignments are.

Charles Phipps
2007-10-14, 01:05 AM
In theory you could justify the Punisher as a LG Grey guard. I think even WotC is starting to realize what a pile of crap alignments are.

Actually, it seems to be what sets it apart. White Wolf and Call of Cthulhu have their adherents but people like the objective morality of D&D.

averagejoe
2007-10-14, 01:16 AM
I use it and think that some solid uses of the system are more or less dependent on it and I'm also fond of it; but that is only as long as people don't go Gestapo over it (i.e. "your character wouldn't do that he's lawful neutral" and similar bull)! If they do, I get mad, so honestly I'd be happier if alignments were not removed, but toned down to leave less room for the said Gestapo approach.

Well, sometimes "going Gestapo" helps to ensure the health of the campaign. I mean, I rarely restrict my PCs from doing anything, but every once in awhile I have to say something like, "Your character wouldn't go into that town, slaughter the children, and steal their stuff; he's lawful good," and suchlike. :smalltongue:

Tequila Sunrise
2007-10-14, 01:27 AM
Actually, it seems to be what sets it apart. White Wolf and Call of Cthulhu have their adherents but people like the objective morality of D&D.

I know I do. I define the alignments a little differently than tradition does, but I like playing in a game where being a nice person is a defining trait with tangible consequences. It's a refreshing break from the real world.

Zincorium
2007-10-14, 01:57 AM
Allegiances- the best thing D20 modern ever came up with.

Do you want to be a champion of good in one of my homebrew campaigns? Go right ahead. Same with law or chaos or evil. But if you don't care about those, and judge things in terms of tribe, or country, or political affiliation, all of those are just as valid.

And if you really have no allegiance other than your own skin, that's fine too.


Alignments are problematic because everybody has one and everybody is defined according to the same terms, regardless of whether those are even relevant. It also over-empowers anti-alignment spells because good PC's can reasonably expect to fight evil opponents of whatever stripe at least some of the time.

Skjaldbakka
2007-10-14, 02:34 AM
I use alignment as a roleplaying tool. I will say things like this in a game:


(In reference to the PCs encountering the Dread Emperor)
To the NG PC: It makes your skin crawl thinking about those poor miserable children chained to the armor of this sadistic creep. As you fire arrow after arrow into the emperor, and see the pain on the faces of those children as the arrows strike home, it is all you can do to keep from breaking out in tears at the pain you are inflicting on those innocent lives. As they die before your onslaught, long before the Dread Emperor shows any signs of discomfort, the man smiles and laughs.

To the LN PC: You feel bad that these children cannot be saved, and that they will die before you have defeated the emperor. You take consolation in the fact that he will die, and his reign of terror will end. At the end of the day, the important thing is that you have slain this blasphemer and defiler in the name of Wee Jas.

Ravyn
2007-10-14, 04:56 AM
Skjald: It's an interesting approach, but I've found my players do better when I don't tell them what they feel. They're more than capable of doing it themselves.

As for alignment--I run in alignmentless systems, and when I play it's almost invariably the last thing I decide. Mainly because I don't really know how the character operates until I've been in her shoes a while. I had one who I could swear would've pinged as an NE when I first conceptualized her, only now... well, now I don't think she'd really fit in any alignment category, not even true neutral, but one could make a strong case for her being Good.

AslanCross
2007-10-14, 05:50 AM
Alignment discussions rarely turn up in my game. They haven't really gotten into any real moral dilemmas yet, anyway. I'm pretty relaxed about the whole alignment thing. A paladin in one of my groups is outwardly apathetic and lazy, but he really goes to great lengths to achieve good on his own (without his party knowing) through lawful means. It's a guideline, not a straitjacket.

EDIT: Outsiders definitely ping as evil, though. My group's paladin is using Fax's redone paladin, and has the diligence mantle. He has to use detect evil every time he might have to engage someone in combat.

Also, after reading through this thread some more, I saw how some people frown upon Exalted morality. I have to say I disagree with it being unfavorably restrictive. I believe that's the point of being Exalted anyway. It's not for everyone, but if you REALLY want to play it, then go ahead. It's the kind of Good that you really can't weasel around. Whatever the case may be, Exalted Goodness should be something a player takes consciously when developing a character. It would be utterly foolish for anyone to make an exalted character and then whine about the restrictions.

Saph
2007-10-14, 06:16 AM
We use it by the book. It's never hurt any of our games, and often it makes them a lot more interesting. I've always liked D&D's alignment system, it's a cool feature.

- Saph

Kiero
2007-10-14, 06:56 AM
I dislike it, and de-emphasise it without getting rid of it completely (because I'm too lazy to figure out what it does to spells like Protection from [alignment descriptor] and so on).

Easy. As far as those spells go, "evil" only applies to outsiders and undead, and "good" from things from the Positive Material plane and the like.

mostlyharmful
2007-10-14, 07:38 AM
I use Good, Neutral and Evil. And I set the Chaos/Law axis on fire and beat it with a big stick infrount of all my players before we start.:smallbiggrin:

Bryn
2007-10-14, 08:13 AM
In the PbP game I'm currently running, I removed it, and made these changes to accomodate it :smallwink:
Detect [alignment] spells no longer exist.
Protection from [alignment] spells are combined into one Protection spell which applies to any creature.
The Paladin's Smite Evil class feature (and the other Smite class features of Unearthed Arcana's variant Paladins) can be used against any creatures.
Alignment requirements for classes are, of course, no longer in effect.
Other alignment-based mechanics generally apply to everyone

Generally I prefer not to use alignment: I think games are more interesting where there aren't universally defined morals. I usually run Eberron, where alignment is generally not important anyway, so it isn't too much of a stretch to remove it from the world entirely. Of course, people can still have moral beliefs, and the villains can be regarded as despicable people, but they aren't 'officially' evil as declared by the universe.

Reinboom
2007-10-14, 08:18 AM
I mostly removed it. All alignment things in my games only apply to outsiders born of one or the other. So "detect evil" basically becomes detect demon or devil more or less. Or "detect good" becomes a way to find archons, solars, etc. Of course, that can be misleading - especially for the outsiders that turn away from their born alignment.

That's the only time I use it. Otherwise it puts arbitrary restrictions on players of which I just don't like.

Xuincherguixe
2007-10-14, 10:12 AM
My Monster Campaign (if I ever finish it all up) is going to be fairly messed up in terms of alignment.

The Humans, mostly their gods will serve as the primary antagonists. They will be Lawful Good in the sense that they declare themselves as Good and keepers of order, which is also good. They have declared deviation from the system, and questioning their perfection evil. They are far from perfect, and often make contradictory statements. To point this out would be treated as both a lie, and evil.

The traditional monster races fit into this too. They don't look human, and therefore are "evil". The Human looking races (elves, dwarves and such) are seen as inferior, but as mostly "acceptable". By the time the campaign is started, they have been subjugated (I may have a few free Elf and Dwarf cities, but they would not be major powers)


The monster races themselves mostly would worship nature spirits. I'm not quite sure how to handle these. The thought here is that they would individually be very strange and their actions may not make sense, but put all together and there is a system that works. There would be a fair amount of alignment range, but it ends up with a bit of a "chaotic good" bias, though that label may not mean much. While their would be strong tensions, and even outright hate, frequently the various factions nature spirit factions would respect each other. But it's not guaranteed.

Some of the monster races, and (probably a drow) empire would be demon (devils being included) worshipers. To call it evil is too simplistic. To worship demons is to worship power. By fear of power, desire for it, or seeking to understand how power works. It usually involves a heavy amount of selfishness, and forcing others to suffer for your own gain. But it also is about asserting ones own existence, and one exerting their will on the world. Some Demons won't even be that bad. Most are awful, and a fair number are horrible and terrifying. As a system, mostly each of the evils, some neutrals, and a bit of Chaotic Good. (They still are devoted towards acquiring power, but may be alright people.)


I don't really like alignment much, but this is how I tend to define it when I use it. Good people will help others, even when it inconveniences them. And while they may be mistaken at times, their intention is to be helpful and generally respects other views even if it disagrees. How it reacts to evil can vary. The books may say otherwise, but Good tends towards balance

Neutral is primarily self interested, but it at least acknowledge the existence of others.

Evil doesn't have to think of itself as evil. It is generally extremely selfish, seeing others as merely a means to an end. This selfishness generally goes to a level that far exceeds reasonable levels to the point of being irrational. Evil individuals often believe themselves to be superior, there reasoning is the only correct one, and that they must bring their system to everyone by any means necessary. Destruction itself is not evil, and is something that can often be viewed in many different ways, but mindless acts of violence committed by one being on another is. Evil almost always is unbalanced in some way, even when it seems to be "working".


Law and Chaos are poorly defined in the rules. I think every alignment needs to be able to have certain values. Strong willed types should be able to make definitions, or even that they do not need them at all. But Law and Chaos shouldn't be an example of where one alignment has thought about things and the other hasn't.

Law has a need to impose itself. Where order does not exist, it has a need to force order in. It generally sees Order itself as a value. It usually has need for some authority, but it may disagree on what that authority should be. It generally seeks conformity.

Chaos is full of variety. It may be random, or it might only seem random. It tends not to need rules, but may still have patterns behind it if you look closely. Freedom, and Personal Strength are important. If one is good, there is a tendency to believe that these are the rights of all. If one is evil they believe only they have rights. Conflict is often seen as a virtue in chaos, but what form that conflict takes may very considerably.


Mostly, I try and place characters as what feels right. A Berserker constantly searching for opponents to fight to the death, not caring for the consequences to others, willing to let others suffer just for the fight. He honors his opponents, but they generally don't have much of a choice about fighting him. The opponent is allowed to fight on equal grounds. This person would be Chaotic Evil. Despite a sense of honor, they are completely insane. He is selfish, despite not caring for his own life.

For another Suicidal Berserker (Hey I like them alright?), is a depressed woman who is determined to die in a glorious way. She does not believe in an after life, but wouldn't mind being remember for how she died. Rather than forcing opponents to fight, they are given a choice. She takes into consideration the surroundings to make sure that no one else gets hurt. This character would be at least Chaotic Neutral, and probably Chaotic Good. If she believed in Valhalla, or was thinking rationally she might make it Lawful Good. But violence, power, the need for death, and a total disregard for ones own life tend to point to chaos for me.


Both seem like they could be fun characters.