Welcome to Gaia! ::

Personally, I hate the alignment system that D&D uses. In fact, I hate most alignment systems. It seems to me that it squashes a person's ability to play an actual character and forces them to play the alignment, instead. I feel that this strips away a lot of the depth that can be achieved in roleplaying. Plus, alignment is so open to individual interpretation that I find it nigh useless. So, I usually toss out the alignment system in my games.

So, what about characters that have strict alignment requirements then? Though it is a lot of work, what I usually do is sit down with my player and create a "Code of Conduct" based on the character's class. This way, there is a definite, hard line drawn where the character can and can't go and still maintain their class/powers. This works especially well for monks and paladins.

Barbarians....I've never understood the need for them to be chaotic. I can see where the game creators are coming from, in that any character that flies into rages isn't going to be lawful. However, that's just one aspect of lawfulness (personal conduct). The other aspect is societal conduct. Now, I would think that a barbarian could be incredibly lawful when it comes to their own tribe. They can observe the traditions and laws of their own culture strictly. In fact, I imagine them to do just that. However, they probably have little regard for the law of civilized lands. So, because they don't care about the law of...say...Cormyr, does that make them entirely chaotic? After all, back home they follow the law and, probably, continue to follow their own law as they travel (i.e. only eating the meat of what they kill themselves, bathing in snows once a month, etc.)

I just find the alignment system far too ambigious and restrictive. I find that people actually play characters when there is no alignment. They think about their character's background and personality when making a decision, rather than thinking "Hey, he's chaotic good....would he do this?" Plus, it makes it much easier for people to play "evil" characters, if they wish, and have them mesh well with a mostly "good" group. Again, if you are focused on the character's background, then the "good" and "evil" tend not to clash as much because it isn't in the forefront of the player's minds.

So, what do you think?

I tend to disagree, somewhat.

I've found that once you take the emphasis off of alignments, that you no longer have the clash between good and evil characters. The emphasis within the player's mind is no longer "I should disagree with him because he's evil" (which is often the case. Clashes arise merely because the players think there should be a clash) and turns to more reasonable causes for disruption. For example, an "evil" character can still be perfectly civil and charming. He is, of course, not going to announce that he has ulterior motives for anything. Thus, without looking at the character sheet and seeing that "NE" is on his sheet, you would never know that he is evil as long as everyone in the group is moving towards the same goal. (People can have wildly varying reasons for doing anything. You can do a good deed for purely selfish (evil) reasons.) So, ultimately, there is no reason for the "good" characters to get bent out of shape over him being part of the group.

I agree that the alignment system offers a way to differentiate between what you and your character feel. However, I feel that it is not a very good way of doing it. The emphasis should be on the character's background and personality. As long as the player has created an in-depth character with a full-fledged history, differentiating between player and character shouldn't be a problem. I would say that alignments are to be used when you have created a "cardboard" character.

I still think that raging can be possible with a lawful alignment. Rage, by the definition of the PHB, is something that the player choses to have happen. It is not completely random. He does not lose sight of who his allies are. He does not attack anything that gets close to him in a random fashion. Thus, it could be said that a barbarian has learned to channel his anger into something useful, and this would take some small bit of discipline to achieve. I understand what you are saying and I understand why the designers made it this way. But, I don't see where it is absolutely necessary.

I run a lot of "grey" campaigns. There is no definite good or evil. There are merely varying shades of grey and, personally, I find these more interesting than "good vs. evil." To give the players freedom to explore along the gradients of morals and ethics when playing is far more satisfying, to me, than playing out the tried and true "you are good, therefore you must do X" scene.

Well, just because you can see the LE on the character does not mean your character would know that. There is no outward appearance or indication of alignment, and player knowledge should be seperate from character knowledge, as any good RPGer know. So unless you cast an alignment detection spell you wouldn't know if someone was evil or not. For an example of the seperation of knowledge, I can build computers, but my cleric I play cannot.

I believe a character only ends up being "cardboard" if you play him that way, no matter what his alignment is. I do put an emphasis on backstories and good role-playing in my campaigns, as they are a major part of any good game. I also like to blur the lines between good and evil, and give neutral characters a reason to act in and enjoy the story. But there comes a point, say when I put a princess in distress, where good and neutral characters would feel the need to act, and an evil character simply would not care usually, and the evil character then becomes useless to the game and the other players. An evil character can be a good addition, if the right person is playing it, otherwise they can become quite useless.

Still, to say that one character is "good" and the other "evil" requires the mechanic of alignment. To do away with alignment does away with this distinction. It sounds like your problem with alignment is more a matter of bad roleplaying than any actual hinderance it causes. Any player can be a bad roleplayer, especially if he uses knowledge such as another character's alignment, which his character would not know, in the game.

I like Alignments, personally I see it as how they think, or act. Like Jagir The Chaotic Evil FIghter, thinks in much different terms then his cousin Dinish The Red the Lawful good fighter. I could see lawful barbarians, and lawful bards. Whats to stop a bard from becoming loyal to a king, queen or kingdom? I like the second edition bards better, they all had to be one step neutral, so no CE,LE,CG,or LG.

He just totally stole my response! xp
lol Nice observations DarkHayama 3nodding

Well, I've discussed alignments before with friends. And discussed how they fit into the real world. So, none of that was new.

ah yes, a point I didn't think of, things that specifically involve aura. Spells, and even more so...abilities. What good is a Paladin when he can't really "Smite Evil" because you don't have alignments. And how do you decide whether the cleric can spontaniously cast heal or inflict spells?

What I hate are alignment stereotypes........