Alignment- Do you use it and how?

[Charles Phipps]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I take the Eberron approach.

[Leicontis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tequila Sunrise]

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]

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]

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.