Results 1 to 24 of 24
-
2010-07-12, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
[3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Could you redesign Alignment to accomodate the varying beliefs and values of the people who play it AND the demand for hordes of enemies to thoughtlessly kill? Could the same mechanic for morality in an RPG support both valid differences of opinion and Smite Evil?
I know my opinion, but I'm interested in other people's.
(If you're interested, I was thinking running alignment based powers on religion. Every god has it's own set of virtues and mortal sins, and magical effects are based on them. For instance, the paladins of the god of "Defending The Innocent" can smite the murderous followers of the god of "Personal Strength At All Costs", who's paladins can detect laziness and compassion and smite that. Both of them can smite a war-profiteering arms smuggler. Gets interesting when you realise that DTE's paladins can't smite a follower of PSAAC if he's sworn off alcohol and sex, because he's innocent. I object to anyone, even DTE, getting to be the objective good guy.)
-
2010-07-12, 10:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- R'lyeh
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
That is no different than, say, removing the alignment system completely. Its purpose demands the alignments to be absolute values, above even the gods themselves. If you remove it, it's probably simpler to just remove the thing entirely.
"But I need something evil to smite" is not how the alignment system is intended to be used. Players who seek alignments as way to find acceptable targets sort of broke it long ago.
-
2010-07-12, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NJ, USA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Alignment is one of those tough things to scope at all being alignment is normally very subjective.
Is it Good to Kill? Is it Good to Kill Evil? Is it Good to Kill in the name of a Good Religion? What if a soceity based on a CG Religion went to war with a soceity based on a LG Religion (Elves vs. Humans for example)? Is defending one's own interest a Good thing? One's own way of life? One's own Religion?
At what point is killing a Non-Evil enemy ok? When is Killing an Evil Enemy actually Evil? It's far too subjective to scale it in any more detail than I think 3.5 has done it thus far...
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Law - Chaos Axis. If I had the time I'd think of redoing that aspect, but I just don't think it's worth the effort all in all. What would one break it down to? Elves in literature are often CG, yet they have soceital rules, fierce soceital loyalty and are actually more exclusive in allowing outsides into their realm. Doesn't sound very Chaotic, does it?"What kind of men are these against whom you have brought us to fight? Men who do not compete for money, but for honor" -- Herodotus, VIII, 26
-
2010-07-12, 11:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Your idea reminds me of this:
Spoiler
Originally Posted by D20M SRD
-
2010-07-12, 11:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
How do you think it was intended to be used? I thought that was exactly what it was for. "Here are 2 Orcs. They are not here to add flavour to the scene, or to talk to you about their goals. They serve no purpose in this game other than to be killed by the PCs. They're objectively Evil. Get to killing them so you can search the 10ftx10ft room for treasure."
Isn't that pretty much exactly what Evil monsters are for? Target practice? Obstacles in a fun game?
This is why I like using a subjective system, but having characters treat it as objective truth. No one needs to put their own beliefs within stabbing distance of anyone's character. Also, P'saac says "Yes, yes, yes, whoever survives will prove they were the good guys (my money's on the disciplined side), yes, yes, and yes. I can explain my reasoning if you wish to listen and better yourself. Next question?"Last edited by AvatarZero; 2010-07-12 at 11:16 AM.
-
2010-07-12, 11:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- R'lyeh
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Good characters don't kill Evil characters "because, duh, they're evil". Evil characters do that. "They're Evil" and "they're a clear threat of which my best chances of getting rid of is killing" are very different things. It goes all up the wazoo when you have to figure out something subjective irl into something objective in-game.
Another tricky thing is people saying Evil = Villain. Villainy is not hardwired into evil people's brains. In fact, evil heroes are very easy to find over the story of heroes both real and fictional.
If a group's definition of fun in an rpg is strictly "kicking ass and taking names", alignment isn't even necessary. Throw them in the dungeon and throw hostiles at them and there you are. Kicking ass and taking names.Last edited by Snake-Aes; 2010-07-12 at 11:15 AM.
-
2010-07-12, 11:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
No offense but the Alignment system doesn't need to be changed it sounds like it's just not being used properly.
Alignment is NOT absolute, in fact in the Eberron settings it's a fair bit more grey than it already is. Lawful and Chaotic are ideals not moral compasses, so you can drop those right there, for instance a Lawful Evil characters ideal of law is not killing babies and woman. If you need a large horde of enemies to kill THOUGHTLESSLY then they are neutral the killing is not an act of evil for them, just as in war two good factions can have a misunderstanding the War does not make them evil because they are Lawfully following the leader and doing GOOD by their country. Just as a wolf can eat a rat and not be considered evil. I'm not sure what the issue with Smite Evil is your going to have to clarify.
An alignment is not 100% absolute unless you make an action that is beyond the measure of evil for instance, torturing an individual can be considered evil a good character that tortures to find a loved one or party member is under duress, and though it is an evil act it would be unlikely to change his alignment (if I were DM) if he however got to into the act by doing gruesome and gory things, then the shift would be by 1 for since Lawful Good would now become Chaotic good (he is willing to do anything for the sake of Good). If he continued then he would tread the edge of Evil and could possibly take that position.
A war-profiteering arms smuggler can be anything from Neutral to Evil. It sounds like your just trying to apply smite to more than the opposite sphere aka Evil or Good, if so just throw in Neutral and fixed because that's ultimately what your doing.
If I totally missed the point sorry.Last edited by Volomon; 2010-07-12 at 11:26 AM.
-
2010-07-12, 12:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Freljord
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Sounds like your best bets would either be:
A. Dumping the alignment system;
B. Using the Magic: the Gathering colours as your alignment system.Homebrewer's Signature | Avatar by Strawberries
-
2010-07-12, 12:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
The issue with alignment is usually twofold: Some folks interpret it as the sole determinant of character behavior, and it has become a mechanical component (smites, Protection from spells, etc.) when the intended purpose seems to have been a flavor component.
The best method is to throw it out entirely, or employ it only as the loosest guideline. If you think that it would be appropriate for paladins in your world to smite "enemies of the faith," then so be it. It's your game, have fun with it. Don't be a slave to what is arguably the weakest link in the D&D rules.
-
2010-07-12, 12:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Surrender Monkey Land
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Some time ago, I've had the idea of a deity-centic, relativistic alignment system. Among many other things, Smite Evil becomes Smite the Unholy, and works on any of the following :
- Believers of an "unholy" deity.
- Members of an "unholy" race or species, unless they're an explicit ally of your religion. For almost every deity, this includes demons and undeads.
- Cultists of an "unholy" group of outsiders.
- Heretics of your religion and those of your God's closest allies.
- Blackguards and Ur-priests (both would become base classes) who've sworn enmity against your God or one of His/Her allies.
- "Untouchables", enemies of the faith who've been singled out by a powerful priest of your God or one of His/Her allies. The spell involved would be around 6th level.
- Depending of your God, nay-theists, Untouchables of some or all other religions, and heretics of some or all other religions. Needless to say, Knight Templar-ish deities are particularly fond of those additions.
I've never had the motivation to even try to put it in written form, though.Last edited by Murdim; 2010-07-12 at 12:53 PM.
-
2010-07-12, 01:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NJ, USA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Thinking on it more, I'd likely go with a 5-step system for Good - Evil variance.
Benevolent
Altruistic
Neutal / Apathetic
Selfish
Malevolent
The idea of the extreme jumps from Good to Neutral to Evil don't encompass the in-between that get's argued at the game table regarding alignment. Get rid of the idea of Good and or Evil in name, and going along a more sensical scale of one being Benevolent to Altruistic (helping others, avoiding unnecessary injury, etc..) to Apathetic to Selfish (Willing to Steal, Cheat, etc.. without thought to the consequences of others) to Malevolent makes more sense. Only extreme cases for mortals would ever yield Benevolent or Malevolent alignment. Those are mostly reserved for outsiders, undead, etc..
Breaking it down, people as we know them through history that fall under Benevolent might be Mother Teresa, the Dali Lama or Mahatma Gahndi. People utterly giving and compassionate. People who, through great self-sacrifice and/or enlightenment, seek to forge a better world with no personal gain or recognition desired.
Altruistic people are easy to discern. These are people who, while not at great personal sacrifice, do good in the world through charities, causes or just by being good neighbors. The celebrity that uses their powers to help the unfortunate and dowtrodden would be altruistic. The neighbor who fixes you a meal or watches your kids when you're stretched thin and won't accept payment is another good example.
Neutral / Apathy are most people. The person who doesn't help someone in need, but doesn't injure anyone through their own selfishness either, falls into this category. For gaming purposes, those who seek balance also adhere to this moral concept since either altruism or selfishness both might be needed in order to maintain their ideals.
Selfish is another easy one. The executive that gives himself the 6-figure bonus while his employees get no raises nor bonus is Selfish. The person who steals without thought of the affects on others is selfish. In the fantasy gaming example, the adventurer that will exploit a town's policies for profit, or who will extort the town as a means of protection is Selfish.
Malevolent are again those few and far between... People who take utter joy in killing. People who engineer plans for widespread destruction and suffering. Hitler would be Malevolent. The WTC bombers would be Malevolent (if only by their means - not bringing in religious justification). In D&D I would pin Malevolent on few mortals. Sure, the NPC megalomaniac crops up now and then and needs to be put down. Yeah, the "evil" mage that wants to open a gateway to the abyss and let hordes of demons fill the material plane is Malevolent. I guess you need a good Malevolent BBEG to end a campaign with - but it should take years of evil-doing to reach true malevolence.
Similarly, I'd go with a Law - Chaos "redux" of 5 as well...
Fundamental
Conservative
Neutral / Apathetic
Liberal
Anarchaic
Like with the above, most soceities would be Conservative, Apathetic or Liberal. Fundamental and Anarchic concepts don't play well in large-scale soceities and often occur in smaller groups, cults, and again, with outsider-types soceital structures.
The thing is that all soceities have some form of law. The idea of chaos is silly in an alignment scale. Even an utterly Anarchaic soceity would follow the order of might makes right. Rather than being a judge of how orderly a soceity (or PC) may be, let this axis be a determination of how much they feel their order should come from within their soceity and how much should be determined through personal belief.
A Fundamentalist would feel that soceity dictates all order. The laws are stringent and must be obeyed with failure to do so often bearing a heavy cost. Fundamentalists will often put their soceital beliefs ahead of their moral beliefs - thus a Fundamentalist Altruist would have no problems going to war against an Anarchaic Altruist soceity, or another Fundamentalist Altruist soceity if their dictums of fundamnetalist differ greatly. This is the home of religious fanaticism in the world of D&D - when followers of two good Gods may war upon another because of "policy difference."
Going down the chains of this axis, one can easily see how each step involved less soceital "governing" and more personal "morality." By THIS token, Elves who live in well established and ordered soceities are still Liberal since their laws done impugn their choices - but do dictate a long list of soceital expectations.
When one gets to the other end they find the lack of soceital structure. The pure might makes right concept of either Anarchy or the Utopia concept of a non-violent free soceity of expression. Again, neither of these really works in the mortal world as a functioning soceity..."What kind of men are these against whom you have brought us to fight? Men who do not compete for money, but for honor" -- Herodotus, VIII, 26
-
2010-07-12, 01:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Minnesota
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
The wizard of Oz had the best alignment system of all time
- Good Witch
- Not a Witch at all
- Bad Witch
-
2010-07-12, 01:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- London, EU
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 01:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NJ, USA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Most definitely not... But it's a little bit more without becoming overly cumbersome (in my opinion - which I'm sure people will disagree with)
It has worked well in my homebrew system as I've pretty much taken out the whole "aligned damage" concepts and have very few powers / spells / effects that target only the extreme moral alignments. I was very cautious to not make things that worked for an alignment by affecting all things not of that alignment (like Holy Words and such)"What kind of men are these against whom you have brought us to fight? Men who do not compete for money, but for honor" -- Herodotus, VIII, 26
-
2010-07-12, 03:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- In eternity.
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
My redesign:
Nix alignments completely. Nix alignment subtypes like [Law] and [Evil]. Nix holy word/dictum/etc.
Change detect alignment to detect type, which works as detect undead but for any creature type or subtype specified at cast time.
Change protection from alignment to protection from type, which works as protection from evil but against any creature type or subtype specified at cast time. Change magic circle against alignment similarly.
Change Smite Alignment to Smite. You choose when to smite. On a similar note, encourage Paladin players to become Crusaders instead, but allow both classes.
Change Clerics to worship an ethos by default instead of a deity or pantheon. (Many players did this already.) Those that feel strongly about a divine force's credo will sign up or get called to serve.Last edited by Endarire; 2010-07-12 at 03:07 PM.
-
2010-07-12, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
I'd like to add something to this, but I think it really sums it up.
I use alignment as a description, like hair color or body height. Works really well that way.
Now lets get to opening this weeks monk thread.Last edited by Yora; 2010-07-12 at 03:11 PM.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2010-07-12, 03:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
-
2010-07-12, 03:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NJ, USA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Last edited by okpokalypse; 2010-07-12 at 03:27 PM.
"What kind of men are these against whom you have brought us to fight? Men who do not compete for money, but for honor" -- Herodotus, VIII, 26
-
2010-07-12, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
I could, but why bother when other people said it better?
Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion.
Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions
-
2010-07-12, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Surrender Monkey Land
- Gender
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
Well, alignement does matter when you're in a campaign that deals heavily with holy powers, divine strifes, or the concepts of cosmic Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos). Outside of those particular situations, alignment isn't nearly as botched as some make it out to be, if only because - as you said - it isn't nearly as important as those same people make it out to be.
Basically, alignment isn't serious business - except when it is.
I also like okpocalypse's 5-degree alignment grid, though my version is quite different from his. It was basically made to explain how humans could "not tend to any alignment, even neutrality", and how definitely flawed races such as elves, dwarves and gnomes could be "usually Good", without making both Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) even cheaper than they already are. Or if you prefer, as a way to better handle the workings of alignment among the common people. Basically, for humans, it gave something like 5% Good, 25% good-ish, 40% neutral, 25% evil-ish, 5% Evil. And Law and Chaos.Last edited by Murdim; 2010-07-12 at 04:15 PM.
-
2010-08-25, 08:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
-
2010-08-25, 09:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
I have considered this, and was thinking of trying the following:
Alignment is broken up into two axises: Good-Balance-Evil, and Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic. Each character chooses one alignment from each axis, such as Lawful Good. During gameplay, taking actions which do not benefit the character in theme with their alignment (on either axis) grants them an action point, which are used as in the Eberron campaign. This would explain why Evil characters frequently follow the 'comic book villian' senario (lots of easy AP) while not forcing an Evil character into constant murder.
Smite Evil is changed into Smite Profane. It only works on evil outsiders and other sources with a profane aura (Clerics of evil deities). It no longer works on generic evil, such as orcs and killers.
I've also considered changing Paladinhood a bit, turning it into an order which anyone can join. As long as you are part of the order, you can use the Paladinish abilities and bonuses (regardless of class) but you must follow the rules of the order. Violate the rules, and you are kicked out and lose all abilities permanently.
-
2010-08-26, 12:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Location
- The Flying City Columbia
- Gender
-
2010-08-26, 12:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: [3.5] Redesigning the Alignment system
You can also check out my Color Wheel conversion, which is in my siggy. Don't like someone? You can probably self-justify killing them. Hell, if you're playing Red, Black, or Green, not liking them is the reason (well, okay, only if you're also a prick, but hey).