Community

New Alignment Choice: None

I suggest this as a half-step between retaining alignment and abandoning it wholesale. The "None" selection means the character simply has not chosen affirmatively to align with one of the cosmic/philosophical poles. He doesn't particularly care about such concerns, which really should really only concern the gods and their servants (clerics and others who affirmatively choose to serve an alignment).

This would also sever the notion of alignment as dictating player behavior. Obviously even those with "None" as their alignment *have* drives and mores and codes. They are just personal mores and codes and not dictated by the extraplanar centers of alignment. Characters may have it noted -- parenthetically -- that while they do not serve an alignment, nevertheless they generally comport with some aspect of alignment. So an insanely evil character like the Joker might have the alignment None (Chaotic Evil) to indicate that while he cares not for the struggles of the gods he does incline to an anarchic and evil outlook. But his alignment is extremely soft in the sense it describes his basic outlook, not some rigid philosophical or religious commitment to Chaos or Evil per se.

This also allows evil, selfish beings to serve alignments they do not actually believe in. While good-aligned creatures would tend to serve alignments they actually believe in -- integrity and all that -- there is no reason why a man who is chaotic and neutral could not serve Lawful Evil *simply because the devils have offered him a sweet deal.* Such a man might have his alignment described as Lawful Evil (chaotic, neutral) to indicate that his actual tendencies diverge from the cosmic principle he serves.

Of course in many cases alignment will be far simpler: A true Lawful Good paladin will just be Lawful Good.

But for many characters the "None" alignment just make sense. Yes, Paladins and Clerics will tend to have a stated alignment; not so with the great majority of adventurers, nevermind peasants. What on earth could a lowly peasant care about alignment? It hardly affects him and he is powerless to advance it. And further he hasn't the time to bother himself with such abstractions that mean so little to his life of toil and want.

I just propose this as a compromise between those demanding alignment be kept and those (the majority I think) who believe it to be a relic of the primitive roots of wargaming. A ranger should be able to select an alignment "None," probably with the (Good) subdescriptor, and maybe with the (anti-authoritarian, good) subdiscriptor if he's a bit like Robin Hood, to indicate he personally has no stake in the cosmic balance but his general moral code places him in the good camp.

Parentheticals can depart from the good, evil, chaos paradigm as well. A rogue might call his alignment None (reluctantly good) to show he's the sort of guy who does not want to be a hero but often winds up being one, against his better judgment.

Orcs? What's their alignment? Probably None (evil). Ditto most humanoids.

Save the true alignment for those few people who actually consciously strive to serve an alignment and of course the numerous outsiders whose primary goal is to advance it. On earth (or Oerth or Aerth or Middle earth or Hyboria or Newhon or wherever) most people wouldn't have a real alignment as D&D defines it. It's just not part of their character concept. So rather forcing them to choose an alignment and then simply ignore it, acknowlege reality (both game play reality and real-world reality) and allow them to say they don't give a rat's haunch about such things but have the alignment None.

It opens up a much greater range of options. No longer is player behavior straightjacketed by a rather simplistic alignment system; via the parenthetical, characters can define their basic morality and tendencies however they like. We can have a fiendish wizard who's actually a fascistic tyrant even while serving demons: alignment Chaotic Evil (tyrannical, fascist evil). And plenty of characters who have the alignment None but some drive or agenda-- a knight might be None (code of honor, chivalrous, good).

I suppose the parentheticals are a bit like d20 Modern's allegiances. Allow players to choose both allegiances and tendencies and separate those from alignment per se. Druids would tend to have alignment/allegiance None (veneration of nature) and perhaps a moral tendency as well, so we can have some officially evil tending Druids (alignment: None (veneration of nature, evil)). Etc. As an aside, given that Druids (in D&D, anyway) care about real-world (or prime material plane) things like forests and tides and moons and trees, I've never really understood why they would even concern themselves with nonearthly concerns like championing the extraplanar agenda of the Neutral alignment.

And Conan? Alignment None (fortune-seeker, barbaric code of honor, anti-civilization).

That describes him a hell of a lot better than the thousand attempts to capture his personality, with him decribed variously as Neutral, Neutral (Good), Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral.