Now to make sense of aligments

[EvilElitest]

A lot of people complain about aligments being unrealistic,

I just wanted to make it clearn because morals are not realative in D&D, many people think that takes something away. But bear in mind, the common people don't know morals are relative in D&D, hence why people act how they want. Here is my idea

When a play makes a characater, he chooses their aligment. The DM (me) takes note and writes the aligment down. The player keeps his aligment on his character sheet. If the DM thinks somebody is not acting according to their aligment, he simply changes it on his own sheet and lets the player keep thinking that they are their own aligment

Example, Bill the LG fighter starts thinking ends justify the means, to work for the greater good, sacerficing hte few to help hte many. This is not good according to the Book of exalted deeds, but the character has never read that, and has no idea that their is some sort of divine judgment. So his aligment is changed to LN without his knowing. Bill's character is still LG, while in reality (and all spells related to taht) he is LN.
If the character has an aligment restriction, they should get a warning. A LG paladin falls for commiting any evil acts, but they also fall for changing aligment. If their basic attatude is very LN, they will revice some sort of vauge sign. If a normally LG paladin suddenly commits evil, then their is nothing that anyone can do about it, and the paladin falls (though wouldn't lose their aligment). Miko would have gotton a warning of her behavoir a long time ago
A class that doesn't have some sort of divine way to warn them, like monk, will have to take their own risks.
An alternate idea is that a paladin who falls and changes aligment could become the varient for a paladin, like a paladin of tryanny for example, but i don't like those varients very much myself
what do you think?
from,
EE

[Falrin]

It's prety much how I do it, but my players don't even note there alignment.

I detract this from their background (which should involve enough alignment-deciding encounters). I never tell them their alignment. On the other hand we do have the typical alignment discussions to prevent DM - Player trouble. Afther all, the player isn't the character. If a player thinks killing a little girl to save the world is LG, the Paladin he is playing would not. As a DM I wouldn't point this out before he stabs her with his Greatsword, but I would have noted this beforehand.

I follow this simple rule:
Actions are divided in 3 major sections:
Intent, Action & Consequence.
Intent and action are the 2 things that define alignment. Consequence is not important most of the time. Only if both Intent & Action are good you become Good.


When certain alignment restrictions that are placed upon a class are violated, you'll be noted in a gentle way. Unless your violation is beyond redemption, then thunder rolls & lightning cleaves the sky.

Being noted in a dream.
Omens & Signs.
Losing high LvL spells or other abilities (small parts of them: Lose 20 Ft bonus speed instead of 30ft)
Losing Spells & Abilities in the heat of battle. The Cleric casting Hold Person on a GoodGuy might see his spell fizzle.

[IonizedChicken]

There is one major flaw with this sort of system.

Namely, that alignments are a pretty vague concept in DND. More importantly, various alignments may be defined differently by different people, especially on the law-chaos axis. While you may think a character is CN the player might argue (and with good reason) that the character is actually LN and if he found out you changed his alignment without a prior discussion he might be a little peevish (or more than a little -- I'd certainly be).

[Roderick_BR]

People just complain when their "chaotic neutral" characters are being evil, and the DM tells them that, and when they want to play class or prestige class, and the alignment bars them. As someone mentioned once, you never see someone complaining that you can't play a lawful barbarian, but you see people complaining when they want to play an assassin, and the DM says they need to be evil to do so.

[EvilElitest]

There is one major flaw with this sort of system.

Namely, that alignments are a pretty vague concept in DND. More importantly, various alignments may be defined differently by different people, especially on the law-chaos axis. While you may think a character is CN the player might argue (and with good reason) that the character is actually LN and if he found out you changed his alignment without a prior discussion he might be a little peevish (or more than a little -- I'd certainly be).

Depends if you have BOVD and/or BOED. Then aligments are well defined
from,
EE

[Khantalas]

Depends if you have BOVD and/or BOED. Then aligments are well defined
from,
EE

The alignments aren't well defined in BoVD and BoED. The exemplar behavior is. Vile and exalted are not the only definitions of evil and good, you know.

And, yeah, Gray Guard is LG. *runs the hell out of there*

[EvilElitest]

The alignments aren't well defined in BoVD and BoED. The exemplar behavior is. Vile and exalted are not the only definitions of evil and good, you know.

And, yeah, Gray Guard is LG. *runs the hell out of there*

If KGB is LG, so is GG Were are you confused in the Book of exalted deeds, becasue that is the best good can be
from,
EE

[Koga]

book of exalted deeds

Stop right there.

Applying exalted deeds to alignment is like saying "oh, this is a nice character sheet *crumples it up and throws it in the garbage* YOU'RE EVIL! MAKE ANOTHER SHEET!"

[Khantalas]

Were are you confused in the Book of exalted deeds, becasue that is the best good can be
from,
EE

Best. Not only. You can't imagine how many good characters don't follow the rules of exalted. And still remain good.

[johhny-turbo]

I find that it seems to be helpful that, instead of saying Good and Evil just say Light Side and Dark Side . The words carry less rhetoric and are less ambiguous, which is nice since most of my gaming group is also in the philosophy club and I'm definitly not gonna use objective morality with them

[EvilElitest]

Best. Not only. You can't imagine how many good characters don't follow the rules of exalted. And still remain good.

Not in my book

A good guy can not be exalted, but if he does too many evil deeds, then he/seh becomes neutral, then evil. Exalted is the best you can be from a good standpoint, but you can be good and not follow it, just be ready to slide into neutral much faster
from,
EE

[jindra34]

How 'bout we use altruism vs. selfishness..

[Amphimir Míriel]

When certain alignment restrictions that are placed upon a class are violated, you'll be noted in a gentle way. Unless your violation is beyond redemption, then thunder rolls & lightning cleaves the sky.

Being noted in a dream.
Omens & Signs.
Losing high LvL spells or other abilities (small parts of them: Lose 20 Ft bonus speed instead of 30ft)
Losing Spells & Abilities in the heat of battle. The Cleric casting Hold Person on a GoodGuy might see his spell fizzle.

First of all, I would like to say: I like alignment discussions like everybody else here (see my sig!), but for crying out loud, do we need a new thread on it daily?

Second, I also use the "dreams first, Omens second, Losing some abilities next" thing to give notice to characters about alignment transgressions, but I normally only do it for divine casters... In fact I have only had to do it once, to a player playing a cleric who thought that only because he wasn't a paladin, he was allowed to behave as a jerk.

He got the deity's point when he lost his domain castings for a week...

[EvilElitest]

First of all, I would like to say: I like alignment discussions like everybody else here (see my sig!), but for crying out loud, do we need a new thread on it daily?

This is a not a discusion, if i wanted that i'd go to gaming, this is a homebrew
from,
EE

[Innis Cabal]

preach it like it is EE! No more discussion

[EvilElitest]

preach it like it is EE! No more discussion

Hell yea
from,
EE

[Innis Cabal]

i am honestly sick of the alignment talks, i dont even read most of them just seeing them annoys me. We all get it, you do not like the alignment system, but guess what? Truth be told it workd, has worked, and will continue to work so long as D&D is around. Same with the magic system. Obviously TSR, and now WoTC, did and is doing something right becuase D20 is the largest TTRPG in the world.

[EvilElitest]

i am honestly sick of the alignment talks, i dont even read most of them just seeing them annoys me. We all get it, you do not like the alignment system, but guess what? Truth be told it workd, has worked, and will continue to work so long as D&D is around. Same with the magic system. Obviously TSR, and now WoTC, did and is doing something right becuase D20 is the largest TTRPG in the world.

Dude, i'm argreeing with the aligment systme, they fuction exacally the same. The only difference is that the PCs don't know what their own aligment is, but apart from that the fuction exactlly the same

If you want to complain about aligments, go ahead, for the most part i agree with you, but find a different thread
from,
EE

[Innis Cabal]

that was to the other people EE, not you

[EvilElitest]

that was to the other people EE, not you

Ohhhhhhhhhhh,
very sorry innis then
from,
EE

[johhny-turbo]

How 'bout we use altruism vs. selfishness..

Personally, I don't really like all of evil just being put under selfishness. I don't see how NE could work otherwise but fanatical LE minions pretty much give themselves up to their master and won't be taking bribes and CE maniacs could lose themselves in their insanity

[EvilElitest]

Personally, I don't really like all of evil just being put under selfishness. I don't see how NE could work otherwise but fanatical LE minions pretty much give themselves up to their master and won't be taking bribes and CE maniacs could lose themselves in their insanity

Respect for life vs. Repect for your own goals. The good of the many is worth the suffering of the few is also selfish, because they are putting the lives of the those lucky enough to be hte many before that of the few
from,
EE