Community

Alignment, and alignment restriction, are a controversial subject in our community. Some like Alignments, some don't. 

However, that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about ways to implement alignment in a more integral way without tying it to mechanics.

I've felt that alignment is often ignored, even in groups that use it. I feel this is a shame, as it can give a game a lot of extra depth.

So I've come up with an idea of how to incorporate alignment more firmly in your game without tying it to mechanics.

First you ascribe a set number of qualities to each axis of alignment.

Then have your players choose an alignment. From the axes of that alignment allow them to pick a number of qualities from the available pool with the rule that they must have at least one from each axis. 

So for example, you have a player that chooses to be CG. You tell them to pick 4 qualities from the list of Good and Chaotic qualities. The player chooses Capricious, Honest, Generous, and Empathetic. 3 Good qualities and 1 Chaotic one.

As an additional option you could allow them to pick from any of the qualities, and allow them to play with it. For example, a character could be Avaricious (Evil), Diligent (Lawful), Friendly (Good), and Eccentric (Chaotic). 

Nov 15, 2012 -- 10:58PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand what this is intended to accomplish. Why would anybody that doesn't already want to use alignment change their mind about it for this?

They wouldn't. It's a hypothetical of how to get people that don't mind alignment to like it. Also a way to give it actual meaning without tying it to mechanics, which is not popular as far as I can see. 

Duly noted, my monocular friend.

Nov 15, 2012 -- 11:25PM, OleOneEye wrote:

As long as the game does not have a bunch of spells, character abilities, monster abilities, and magic items that are specifically tied to alignment, I could care less what the game says about alignment.  It isn't a problem for me if a couple classes have some throw-away line about having to be some alignment that is rediculously easy to ignore, it is the Protection from Good, Detect Evil, Holy Sword, blah, blah, cascading mechanics that is the problem.

Not completely fitting this description, but there are already a few instances that apply to "fiends"(which now applies to both demons and devils, not just devils anymore) and undead.  Protection From Evil and Holy Avenger come to mind.  What if I wanted to make a fiendish type character?  Is every loving cleric going to be especially adept against me just because they consider me a bad guy?  Very un-Dude.  Oh, yeah.  Mace of Disruption, too. 

I really dislike good vs. evil mechanics.  I feel alignment does a poor job of quantifying a character's morality, as it seems to suggest an absolute.  Good people do bad things and bad people do good things.  It's a matter of context and motive, and I feel alignment does nothing to aid that.  In fact, it hinders it completely.

This kind of reminds me of White Wolf's nature and demeanor. I've always liked that concept and often apply it to D&D characters just as a conceptual tool.

The nature and demeanor lists would be a good mine for ideas here.