Who's houseruling Alignments?

257 posts / 0 new
Last post
Well, officially D&D has cut it's alignments down to five: Good, Evil, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and Unaligned.

Now then, who's planning on ignoring the official alignment rules and just continue to have the Nine Alignments anyway?
Well, officially D&D has cut it's alignments down to five: Good, Evil, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and Unaligned.

Now then, who's planning on ignoring the official alignment rules and just continue to have the Nine Alignments anyway?

I've kept the previous 9 alignments.
The question becomes "why?" They have no mechanical relevance.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
The question becomes "why?" They have no mechanical validity.

If the only thing you used in a game of D&D were things that had mechanical validity, you'd have a pretty poor game.

That aside, alignment can make a difference in my campaigns, and I find the 9 alignments cover the spectrum better than the 4E RAW alignments.
I'm dropping it down to 3. The Good Evil axis has a point still in my campaign world.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
I am. Yep, like always, just two. At least so far it appears in 4e I do not have to make a number of changes to spells to make it function. Yay for less work.
I've boiled it down to three: Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Everything else is flavor. If I were to allow a Lawful Good, then I would have to allow a Lawful Evil. If I allowed the Lawfuls to be present, I would, in turn, be expected to allow the Chaotics. It's just too much work and too much trouble for nothing more than something to write on a CRS. They have no real mechanical relevance in-game. If one of my players wants his PC to be Lawful or Chaotic Good, he can just pick Good and role play the Lawful or Chaotic part. Same for Neutral. If a PC is Lawful, True or Chaotic Neutral, he can just be Unaligned and RP the rest. He can write CN on his CRS if he wants to, but it won't grant him anything that simply putting Unaligned wouldn't.
I am happy with the current alignment system.. i found that there was so little difference between how my group played NG/CG or LE/NE (and don't even get me started on the N alignments) that the new system does not affect how my group plays all that much.

If i was to house rule it i would actually go with the Palladium system or Principled, Unprincipled, Miscreant etc etc
If you have any 4E conceptual issues or rules that you would like help with feel free to PM me. Roleplaying since 88! Guide To Dealing With Problematic Posters
Cutting it down the 1.

Don't like alignment, don't care about alignment, and now I don't even have to pretend I do in other people's games. Viva Unaligned.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
Cutting it down the 1.

Don't like alignment, don't care about alignment, and now I don't even have to pretend I do in other people's games. Viva Unaligned.

Agreed.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Always thought the nine alignments was a bad, very arbitrary design. We largely ignored it except when forced to by rules (character classes, spells, etc).

I know how my character will act. I don't need some alignment pigeon-hole or straight-jacket.
Cutting it down the 1.

Don't like alignment, don't care about alignment, and now I don't even have to pretend I do in other people's games. Viva Unaligned.

Agreed. I stopped using alignment when I created my 3.75 rules, and I have yet to get any negative feedback on it. The players enjoy not feeling constrained by perceived barriers imposed by the old alignment system.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
I'm either going to 3 or none. Good, Evil, or Unaligned should cover everything I need. No labels would work just as well though.

I mean in the end, if you really need a label to tell you that the red, scaly, demon-shaped creature feeding on babyflesh is evil...
Always thought the nine alignments was a bad, very arbitrary design. We largely ignored it except when forced to by rules (character classes, spells, etc).

I know how my character will act. I don't need some alignment pigeon-hole or straight-jacket.

It's a holdover from when 1E used Moorcock's Melnibonian alignment system. Which made sense in that world because Lawful-Good was at war with Chaotic-Good, when they weren't joined together to fight Chaotic-Evil and its allies. Actually, in that world I think Chaotic-Good was more likely to join with Chaotic-Evil than it was to find common ground with Lawful-Good.

All of the alignments were mortal enemies with their direct opposite, but still none too friendly with the other alignments either. Neutral would actually fight for Good until Good gained a definite advantage, then switch to Evil to balance the scales.

All very silly, if you ask me.
Half and half for me. I think I'll mostly accept the 5 alignment system, but use Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Unaligned, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil.
Since I have yet to see any consequences for "playing outside" a character's alignment, there doesn't seem to be much point in them. I have yet to see any powers that rely on alignment (such as "smite evil"), so alignment is more of a tool then a rule (as all previous editions have claimed alignment was meant for).

What I find amusing more than anything else is that people are debating about this (I am not saying this thread is a debate, but I have seen them on the boards). DMs can impliment consequences if they want, going back to the old ways, or they can ignore it altogether, or something in between.

The bottom line is, you can play or DM the game however you want.

When I decide to DM, I will be opting to not care about alignment.
I cut my games down to two alignments: Good and Non-Good.
Alignment is silly, and honestly, the only reason I make this distinction at all is so I can give my players alignment restrictions on what kind of characters I allow in my games, because I honestly have a very difficult time writing non-heroic campaigns for non-heroic characters, and it just works out better and more fun for everybody involved if they only play good characters...

EDIT: Oh, and if a player wants to use something that has a non-good alignment restriction, I can usually see my way around it through re-flavoring unless it's just absolutely vile...

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I'm not initially houseruling it, but if I find it important to use the Great Wheel cosmology I'll go back to the 9-alignment system. I could also see cutting it down to just Good/Unaligned/Evil or ditching alignment altogether.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
I find that most PC comes down to two flavours: heroic and selfish. That's all the alignment needed.
I'm getting rid of LG and CE as well.
I know how my character will act. I don't need some alignment pigeon-hole or straight-jacket.

If you ever treated alignment as a pigeon-hole or straight jacket then you were using it incorrectly.
I threw alignment out already, just like in 3ed.
I keep track of the PCs alignments myself. At character creation they create a starting point based on their character concepts, but after that it's up to them how they behave. One player decided to play True Neutral. As the game progressed, he became more "neutral good". As we played I noted incidents in the margins of my paperwork, and when he was affected by a "Protection From Good" ward, the look on his face was great! I had to show him his own record of behavior to show how he had turned "good". It's a lot of bookkeeping on my part, but it keeps alignment where it belongs, in the background, serving only as an identifier and not as a behavioral dictator.
If you ever treated alignment as a pigeon-hole or straight jacket then you were using it incorrectly.

So the designers were using it incorrectly. See also classes alignment restrictions, pretty much all the rules attached to alignment.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
So the designers were using it incorrectly. See also classes alignment restrictions, pretty much all the rules attached to alignment.

Still doesn't put characters in a straight jacket.
I keep track of the PCs alignments myself. At character creation they create a starting point based on their character concepts, but after that it's up to them how they behave. One player decided to play True Neutral. As the game progressed, he became more "neutral good". As we played I noted incidents in the margins of my paperwork, and when he was affected by a "Protection From Good" ward, the look on his face was great! I had to show him his own record of behavior to show how he had turned "good". It's a lot of bookkeeping on my part, but it keeps alignment where it belongs, in the background, serving only as an identifier and not as a behavioral dictator.

This is exactly how we've always played alignment as well.
Still doesn't put characters in a straight jacket.

The hell it doesn't. It kneels them down and puts a gun to their head and says 'if you don't act the lame way I tell you, I'm going to put a nine in your head.'
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
The hell it doesn't. It kneels them down and puts a gun to their head and says 'if you don't act the lame way I tell you, I'm going to put a nine in your head.'

That's nonsense. Very rare instances where you end up with that degree of consequence. Furthermore, "pigeon hole" and "straight jacket" imply an absence of choice, and players always had the final choice. I can't remember many instances where a player tried to figure out what he had to do based on his alignment. Instead, the players did what they wanted to do and their alignment reflected that over time. I know there are some DMs who DID actually pigeon-hole characters, and tell players they can't do something because of alignment, but that's a completely wrong way of playing in my view.
Well, officially D&D has cut it's alignments down to five: Good, Evil, Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil and Unaligned.

Now then, who's planning on ignoring the official alignment rules and just continue to have the Nine Alignments anyway?

I never liked the 9 alignment system or the black and white world D&D has traditionally forced on gamers. I get what they are trying to do, but it is a framework that is so far removed from how people view morality now, that it is actually very difficult to implement. We have just ignored alignment in our group.
That's nonsense. Very rare instances where you end up with that degree of consequence. Furthermore, "pigeon hole" and "straight jacket" imply an absence of choice, and players always had the final choice. I can't remember many instances where a player tried to figure out what he had to do based on his alignment. Instead, the players did what they wanted to do and their alignment reflected that over time. I know there are some DMs who DID actually pigeon-hole characters, and tell players they can't do something because of alignment, but that's a completely wrong way of playing in my view.

A choice that you are openly aware will be soundly and brutally punished is not a viable choice.

That's like saying I have the choice to stick my tongue in the electrical socket. Sure, it's technically on the menu, but it's a stupid thing to do. The mechanical alignment system worked the same way. Sure, you can roleplay your character -- but only if you want your character to become useless.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
A choice that you are openly aware will be soundly and brutally punished is not a viable choice.

That's like saying I have the choice to stick my tongue in the electrical socket. Sure, it's technically on the menu, but it's a stupid thing to do. The mechanical alignment system worked the same way. Sure, you can roleplay your character -- but only if you want your character to become useless.

Like I said, those circumstances are extremely rare. Maybe it was common in the games you play in, but I've been using more or less the same type of alignment system for about 25 years and it was extremely rare that anything even approaching what you're suggesting ever happened, and in the few cases (i.e. Paladin) where it could be a potential disaster, the player chose a Paladin because he WANTED to RP his character in that way, so there was never a serious issue of these dire consequence to begin with. The whole argument is a red herring. If you can't play the old alignment system without pigeon holing your players, you've got a bad DM.
Unaligned > Neutral. Balance schmalance, 'Keeping the universe from eating itself.' is a good goal even if the PC doesn't want to admit to being good, 'Betraying people you swore to aid.' is evil even if the PC rationalizes it with international politics.

I use Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Unaligned, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil, and specify that Alignment is what you do six or seven out of ten times and what you wish you could do ten out of ten times, rather than the whole of your personality distilled into two words. I keep the ethical axis largely because I am mildly OCD and think it looks better than 'Good or Evil', and because it gives me more options in describing alien spiritual beings who really can act a certain way all the time, because they have no concept of self preservation outside of 'I have to go in Ganon's evil jar AGAIN?!'.

I also keep a wooden spoon to threaten people with if they go, 'You're X alignment, you can't do that!' or, 'I do this because, um, I'm X alignment!' too often.

That last bit was a joke.

Or was it?!
What I'm doing is keeping the present alignments and re-introducing True Neutral as an intentional counterpart to Unaligned.

Sure, most "neutral" folks are just folks who haven't "picked a side", but others, like Druids and Mordenkainen's Circle Of Eight (on Greyhawk), actively seek to maintain a balance between the extremes of alignment.

That's why I think we need True Neutral in addition to Unaligned, and that's why I'll be house-ruling it in.
The sycophants and EULA quoters aren't worth our time. 4E =/= Essentials; Essentials =/= 4E. To WotC/DDI: GO "SOON" YOURSELVES. Internet Rule #41. Needs moar Desu. No exceptions.
If I must house rule on alignment, I'll simply remove the "mechanic" altogether.
I won't be using Alignment. I'll be using a social system of allegiances and the like.

Alignment's never worked for my group. Morality's more complex than that in practice.
My own games have most often run simply on a Good-Neutral-Evil axis.
Sure, you can further describe each one but that's almost never been a factor at my table - unless you were a paladin. Or in the case of the occasional magic item keyed to a specific alignment.

So I don't really see my aproach changing should I run a 4e game.

Once again I'll just have Good, Evil, & Neutral (interchangable with "Unaligned").
Re: Title

Back out of existence, like the end of my 3E run?

I am.

Alignments are a crutch for roleplaying that have been taken entirely too far. D&D needs them like it needs Wish and Miracle back.
I keep track of the PCs alignments myself. At character creation they create a starting point based on their character concepts, but after that it's up to them how they behave. One player decided to play True Neutral. As the game progressed, he became more "neutral good". As we played I noted incidents in the margins of my paperwork, and when he was affected by a "Protection From Good" ward, the look on his face was great! I had to show him his own record of behavior to show how he had turned "good". It's a lot of bookkeeping on my part, but it keeps alignment where it belongs, in the background, serving only as an identifier and not as a behavioral dictator.

Now imagine instead the look on his face had he drifted from Law to neutral, and you said, sorry, your monk cannot advance any more as a monk.
Personaly, I'd have prefered a Lawfull-Chaotic-Evil-Good-Unaligned, but this is not illogical..

I had an epiphany, last week; it' s an orderly/civilised/focused/controled Evil and Good VS a Natural/Wild/Chaotic set of Good and Evil. It have a sense.
I won't be using Alignment. I'll be using a social system of allegiances and the like.

Alignment's never worked for my group. Morality's more complex than that in practice.

qft
Dark Sun DM starting October 18th 2010 Level 4 Tiefling Orbizard Level 3 Tiefling Telepath Psion

12.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

My house rule is that players decide who the guy they're playing is, and then they act it out. No labels, no blunt, inadequate classifications of philosophy. They do stuff, and then the game world reacts to their behavior and attitude.
Sign In to post comments