The Campaign Builder's Guild

The content of this post is Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d).

The following is a rough work-up of a variant alignment system that I'm considering using in a setting I'm working on.  Do you think it is worth developing further, or is making alignment astrological instead of moral just too weird?

Astrological Alignment

A creature's alignment has nothing to do with its moral outlook.  Instead, it reflects the position - the "alignment" - of the stars and the planets at the moment of the creature's birth.  Some astrological signs are universally recognized as being good, others as being evil.  Some are chaotic, others are lawful.  Many are neutral.  Creatures born under an astrological sign of a given alignment have that same alignment, and are affected by spells and effects accordingly.

For example, a creature born under a lawful good astrological sign counts as lawful good for the purpose of spells and effects, regardless of its morality.  That lawful good character might be heroic, villainous, or anything in-between, because there is no such thing as "violating" the lawful good alignment.  The same is true of any alignment.

While astrologers like to describe behaviors that are typical for creatures of each given alignment - indeed the astrological alignments are named for the moral character of the deeds sometimes associated with them - these vague trends are not strict rules.  Except in the case of unwanted compulsion effects, a creature's behavior is not determined by its alignment, and vice versa.  Alignment simply measures the ways in which certain effects interact with a creature, as determined by the heavens at the moment of that creature's birth.

Alignment-Based Requirements: Many classes, cleric domains, and other game elements have alignment-based requirements.  These requirements do not measure the "worthiness" of a character in any way, instead measuring the fate that the cosmos has in store for a character.  The character may or may not have a personality that matches the paths that the circumstances have laid at his feet.

Sometimes, a character who wants nothing more than an peaceful, orderly life is cursed with the fiery soul of a raging barbarian.  Other times, a hero who cannot master the ways of the paladin discovers that he has an aptitude for abilities that he finds morally repugnant.  Just as often, a character's alignment perfectly matches his moral outlook, allowing him to pursue avenues of advancement that fit his demeanor without being tempted by other, less-desirable paths.

Alignment Descriptors: Some spells and similar effects are associated with various astrological alignments.  Using a spell, power, or effect that has an alignment descriptor counts as an action of that alignment.  (Actions other than these do not counts as actions of any alignment.)  Performing an action that has an alignment does not affect the alignment of the creature performing that action, but it may violate codes of conduct that prohibit actions of particular alignments.

For example, a paladin who casts a spell with the evil descriptor has performed an evil act; though he remains lawful good, he has nonetheless violated his code of conduct.  A paladin who willingly burns an innocent creature at the stake, on the other hand, has not violated his code of conduct, because that action, while morally evil, does not count as an "evil act" for rules purposes because moral evil has nothing to do with an evil astrological alignment.

Alignment Subtypes: Some creatures - those with alignment subtypes - have stronger connections to the astrological alignments than others.  Unless it is altered by a magical or psionic effect, such a creature's alignment always matches its alignment subtype, even if the creature was not born under a different astrological sign.  Except in rare cases, a creature with an alignment subtype always has a moral outlook that corresponds to the name of its alignment subtype.

Changing Alignment: Normally, a creature's behavior cannot cause its a change in its alignment.  However, some magical and psionic effects exist that can make such a change, essentially doing so by overriding the influence of the stars.  For example, an atonement spell can change a willing creature's alignment.  However, doing so does not also change the creature's moral outlook; the creature is merely "atoning" for the original sin of being born under an undesireable astrological sign.

There also exist some compulsions that force a creature to adopt a new alignment against its will.  When a creature is forced to adopt an alignment in this way, the creature's behavior actually does change to match the moral outlook that corresponds to the name of its astrological alignment.  This change in behavior is an additional effect of the compulsion that changed the creature's alignment against its will, not an inherent property of the creature's newly aquired alignment.

OMG! This is so simple and yet it solves so many problems! I would have removed alignment eons ago, if I just had figured something like this out. Post the rest please. I'm going to use this in Sulos.

I'm glad you like it, and I feel honored that you'll be using it in Sulos.  Astrological alignment is pretty straightfoward (you've got most of what you need in the OP), but I'll get to work on the more complicated details (things like alignment-based requirements, alignment subtypes, and the such).

Here's a little something Xathan and I worked out that functions along similar lines. Alignment fluctuates from month to month as the waxing and waning of the planes influences the world in subtle ways. People have "alignment" based upon the planar alignment during the time of their birth.

We created a calendar with 360 days, nine months, and a rotating alignment configuration. The months have 40 days each divided into four 10 day "cycles." I also made sure to note seasonal changes.

We tied the seasons to the law/chaos axis. The harsh weather of winter is chaotic and unpredictable, but during the summer the weather is mild and consistent.

We may have the planar alignments effect spell-casting as well. For example in chaotic months spells from the chaos domain function at +1 caster level, but spells from the law domain function at -1 caster level. We're not 100% sure if we will use this option, but it's something that was mentioned in passing.

Xathan may be using constellations as well, but I don't think I will be. I think the pull of the planes is enough fo me.

The Calendar

Lerast
40 days Chaotic
40 days Neutral

Sunest
20 days Chaotic
20 days Neutral
40 days Evil

Monevan
40 days Neutral
40 days Good

Xeriat
40 days Lawful
40 days Neutral

Innolus
40 days Lawful
40 days Evil

Suval
40 days Lawful
40 days Good

Anilalon
40 days Neutral
40 days Neutral

Meninar
20 days Neutral
20 days Chaotic
40 days Evil

Raemedir
40 days Chaotic
40 days Good

Other Info:

Summer 4/16 through 6/25 (90 days)
Fall 6/26 through 8/35 (90 days)
Winter 8/36 through 2/5 (90 days)
Spring 2/6 through 4/15 (90 days)

40 days of every alignment in a repeating cycle
10 Days in a Cycle
4 Cycles in a Month
9 Months in a Year

Edit:Thanks Eric; this planar alignment idea kicks royal behind!

Cool.  Though I'm not going to include specific alignment-to-calendar associations in the OP, I encourage anyone who wants to use astroligcal alignment to come up with an original scheme to fit the flavor of their own campaign world.  It could serve to add an extra level of detail to any world's calendar, I'm sure.

I've just added new rules to the OP.  These will probably be a little more controversion than the overall concept, since they invovle the paladin code of conduct, so feel free to offer comments or feedback, so that I may hone them to perfection.

This is looking very good Meeps.  It seems so simple, just like  the nasty man said, but it completely answers the question of how to deal with alignment-based spells and abilities without having actual alignment in the campaign.

Very good idea! Thumbs up! This is a very good way to remove the idea behind alignment without having to tie up each individual loose end in the rules. I would like to point out that Vaalingrade (sp?) also posted a system with the same intention (though the system itself was completely different) on the WotC-boards recently.
Túrin

I hate to differ with popular opinion here, but I must say that I do dislike this system(referring to OP).  Although many people may adopt it, and most everyone seems enthusiastic about it, I just won't use it.  Although the current D&D alignment system has issues, a lot of them can be prevented with a good DM, and a little bit of help from any of various articles found strewn over the internet.

I dislike how alignment is determined by fate, and this system is largely screaming to be a pain.  Every PC would choose his own alignment anyway, making it match his moral views.  And if the DM made peasants alignment Evil, the player's would kill on sight.  I realize that the system could be explained, but old habits die hard.  Even if the players began to understand how the system worked, this system would greatly reduce the effectiveness of such spells as detect evil or protection from evil as alignment has no bearing upon the behavior of it's recipients.

No offense to the OP, or anyone else here, but I do think this system is more trouble than it's worth, at least for me.

I added a much more detailed and expanded calendar to Sulos in the history spoiler. There's a link in my sig.

Quote from: Natural 20I hate to differ with popular opinion here, but I must say that I do dislike this system(referring to OP).  Although many people may adopt it, and most everyone seems enthusiastic about it, I just won't use it.  Although the current D&D alignment system has issues, a lot of them can be prevented with a good DM, and a little bit of help from any of various articles found strewn over the internet.

I dislike how alignment is determined by fate, and this system is largely screaming to be a pain.  Every PC would choose his own alignment anyway, making it match his moral views.  And if the DM made peasants alignment Evil, the player's would kill on sight.  I realize that the system could be explained, but old habits die hard.  Even if the players began to understand how the system worked, this system would greatly reduce the effectiveness of such spells as detect evil or protection from evil as alignment has no bearing upon the behavior of it's recipients.

No offense to the OP, or anyone else here, but I do think this system is more trouble than it's worth, at least for me.

True.  If being evil is just an astrological lottery, then detect evil becomes untenable.

What the astrological alignment system does is enable you to divorce the restrictions of alignment as little or as much as you desire from the game. You can have 95% of people born under the lawful good alignment act lawful good, but it won't force you to make alignment central to your character.

For example, a character who is alstrologically aligned can make decisions and choices that his alignment might otherwise prohibit, without forcing the DM to enforce his player's alignment, for the good of the game. Sometimes a lawful good person won't act in a manner that would be considered lawful good, and that is just human nature; people are nut cut and dry, but alignment is.

Many of us wish alignment did not exist at all in our games, but it is so central to the mechanics of D&D, that removing it causes huge issues. Astrological alignment enables you to pay lip service to the alignment mechanic without having a great impact upon your characters and NPCs.

Yes sometimes detect evil will fail you. A good person will sometimes do evil things, and an evil person may want to put their devious past behind them, and the spell used to detect their alignment will (in these cases) send you mixed signals. That is not a problem in my eyes (though it may be for other people). That's going to cause role-playing situations...

For those who like alignment and it's effect on the game, this system will seem pointless, and it is if you actually enjoying mediating alignment issues. I do not like to waste time defining what a character can and cannot do within the boundaries of his alignment. I already let my players choose their own actions, and sometimes they act on impulse rather than thinking things through, and weighing the effects they will have on their alignment. Well now I won't even worry about it. I'm using this system because it fits the style of game I already run.

QuoteMany of us wish alignment did not exist at all in our games, but it is so central to the mechanics of D&D, that removing it causes huge issues.

Removing alignment is actually quite easy.  You just do it. Detect/ protection spells become enemy or situationally specific.  Classes that require alignments just list prohibited actions.

Adding an alignment system that allows you to act against the alignment is just the same, though more complicated, as ignoring such issues in the first place.

Quote from: CYMRO

QuoteMany of us wish alignment did not exist at all in our games, but it is so central to the mechanics of D&D, that removing it causes huge issues.

Removing alignment is actually quite easy.  You just do it. Detect/ protection spells become enemy or situationally specific.  Classes that require alignments just list prohibited actions.

Adding an alignment system that allows you to act against the alignment is just the same, though more complicated, as ignoring such issues in the first place.

So what does detect evil do? What does detect law do? or chaos or good? How does protection from Evil fuction? What creatures can you ward with antipathy? Who do you smite with smite evil? What creatures can you apply the half-fiendish template to? What creatures can be summoned by Good clerics? evil clerics? neutral clerics?

The list goes on and on. Meep's system provides an elegant answer to these questions based off of astrological sign: How would you answer these questions?

QuoteSo what does detect evil do? What does detect law do? or chaos or good? How does protection from Evil fuction? What creatures can you ward with antipathy? Who do you smite with smite evil? What creatures can you apply the half-fiendish template to? What creatures can be summoned by Good clerics? evil clerics? neutral clerics?

Detect [whatever] becomes detect hostility or detect enemies. Same for protection or smite.  they become situational spells, based on need or specific pc background.  

You apply alignment specific templates according to actions or predetermined criteria(sacrificing  kittens allows template X).

Clerics summon creatures associated with their deity/cause.

QuoteThe list goes on and on. Meep's system provides an elegant answer to these questions based off of astrological sign: How would you answer these questions?

Elegant in that it allows LG characters to murder puppies if it fits their crusading mentality?

QuoteSometimes a lawful good person won't act in a manner that would be considered lawful good, and that is just human nature; people are nut cut and dry, but alignment is.

This is just a handy excuse to ignore alignment repercussions, which is all I see this astrological system as.  It is eating your cake and having it, too.

QuoteElegant in that it allows LG characters to murder puppies if it fits their crusading mentality?

Well now that's just crazy talk! Elegant in the sense that each player is free to play their alignment as they see fit, without a huge debate among everybody at the gaming table.

It turns alignment into a general guideline of behavior, rather than a list of things they can and cannot do. If a player feels that their lawful good PC would break certain laws in the name of good, then that's ok. If they think being good involves random acts of kitten killing they have a very disturbing outlook on what is right and what is wrong.

I don't want to come up with a code of conduct for paladins, monks, barbarians, and bards. I don't want to rewrite and redefine four clerical domains, five dozen spells, a bunch of magical items, class abilities, and the entire meaning of the outer planes. That is a pain in the neck!

You could even continue to play alignments in the exact same way you do now under the planar alignment system. It by no means entails that you should or have to change things; it just gives you the freedom to do so without messing with the rules. Is that really so bad? Do we really need two words on our charcter sheets to define what the moral outlook and philosophy of our characters is?

QuoteThis is just a handy excuse to ignore alignment repercussions, which is all I see this astrological system as. It is eating your cake and having it, too.

What are these so-called alignment repercussions? They aren't any! There is nothing in the DMG or the PHB and never has been. Alignment repurcussions are handled at each gaming table to one degree or another, but to what end? To force feed the alignment system? Because they certainly don't encourage good role-playing.

If I play a character who follows the laws of his own nation wherever he goes, is he lawful in some places but chaotic in others? If I play a paladin who uses detect evil on everybody he meets, is he entitled to kill them? By the rules of alignment yes on both counts...but that could be heavily debated, because alignment cannot cover everything a character can and will do. Any rule this open to interpretation should not be a rule at all, but a guidline.

The sacred cow of alignment is as much (if not more) flawed than any other rule in the game. Do you think Vancian magic is bad? It's got nothing on alignment...rules to help me roleplay? No thanks.

it's not like eating puppies has some kinda reward to it that paladins wish they could get if only didn't have to be lawful good.

I am so using this.

Quote from: nastynate

QuoteElegant in that it allows LG characters to murder puppies if it fits their crusading mentality?

Well now that's just crazy talk! Elegant in the sense that each player is free to play their alignment as they see fit, without a huge debate among everybody at the gaming table.

It turns alignment into a general guideline of behavior, rather than a list of things they can and cannot do. If a player feels that their lawful good PC would break certain laws in the name of good, then that's ok. If they think being good involves random acts of kitten killing they have a very disturbing outlook on what is right and what is wrong.

Disturbing or not, it throws all alignment strictures on their collective heads.  You have provided a one line excuse for allowing any behavior "in the name of good."  
The whole point of the alignment system is to quantify good vs. evil.  All this does is allow a paladin to play de facto TN while claiming it is in the name of good.  Why bother to worry about alignment at all then?

QuoteI don't want to come up with a code of conduct for paladins, monks, barbarians, and bards. I don't want to rewrite and redefine four clerical domains, five dozen spells, a bunch of magical items, class abilities, and the entire meaning of the outer planes. That is a pain in the neck!

It is really not that difficult....

QuoteYou could even continue to play alignments in the exact same way you do now under the planar alignment system. It by no means entails that you should or have to change things; it just gives you the freedom to do so without messing with the rules. Is that really so bad?

Again, it is an unnecessary complication just to allow laissez-faire character actions.

QuoteDo we really need two words on our charcter sheets to define what the moral outlook and philosophy of our characters is?

That is the purpose of those two words.
Do we really need a digit to define how much physical damage we can take?

I run two campaigns, one w/o alignments, one with alignments.  
I cannot honestly see how OP's system would add to the quality of either one.  I do see how players, especially the cross-section represented on the WOTC boards, would abuse the shit out of OP's system.

Quote from: brainfaceit's not like eating puppies has some kinda reward to it that paladins wish they could get if only didn't have to be lawful good.

You obviously do not hang around the paladins represented on WOTC's boards....

QuoteDisturbing or not, it throws all alignment strictures on their collective heads. You have provided a one line excuse for allowing any behavior "in the name of good."
The whole point of the alignment system is to quantify good vs. evil. All this does is allow a paladin to play de facto TN while claiming it is in the name of good. Why bother to worry about alignment at all then?

If a player cannot roleplay without an alignment written on his character sheet, then the player is not somebody I would game with. I don't need alignment rules to tell me what is right and what is wrong...I am personally afraid of those who do (that is sociopathic).

QuoteThat is the purpose of those two words.

What in game purpose does alignment serve? Your moral outlook and philosophy can and should be determined by your your role-playing correct?

QuoteDo we really need a digit to define how much physical damage we can take?

Yes. Combat is based upon things we cannot determine by roleplaying. If we play freeform games without rules we don't need D&D at all.

QuoteIf a player cannot roleplay without an alignment written on his character sheet, then the player is not somebody I would game with.

Plenty of players can roleplay with or without alignment in the game.  But alignment is, for those campaigns using it, a stricture that defines roleplaying.   You are playing a "role", the alignment helps give body to the role, just as the angst over his father's murder gives body to the role of Hamlet.  What OP seems to want is to claim a role, but not to have to roleplay within that roles strictures.

QuoteI don't need alignment rules to tell me what is right and what is wrong...I am personally afraid of those who do (that is sociopathic).

I think you are confusing real life and gaming.  In the game right and wrong are different than in real life....

QuoteWhat in game purpose does alignment serve? Your moral outlook and philosophy can and should be determined by your your role-playing correct?

Alignment helps define the role, it provides structure and boundaries to that role.  You choose, for example, to play the role of a cleric of Nerull.  Are you truly roleplaying if you spend all of your time acting in a manner the rules describe as LG?
Moral and philosophical outlook should be decided upon first, then an alignment chosen to fit the background you have developed for the character.  What is so hard about that?  Or about roleplaying within the bounds you chose to roleplay?

QuoteYes. Combat is based upon things we cannot determine by roleplaying.

Ditto for a game where the moral compass is present.  Claiming to be good and acting in quantitatively evil ways is the opposite of good roleplaying.
Where does OP's system advance roleplaying?
It just allows characters to act outside of the roles they have chosen, which is not good roleplaying.  
To use the stage analogy, if you are given the part of Hamlet, and play the role in the manner of Launcelot Gobo, you are not playing your role well.  The same is true of the player that chooses to play a paladin and acts, by RAW, in a manner consistent with TN.  You are then not roleplaying, unless you have chosen to play the fallen paladin.

Cymro you are missing Eric's (the OP) intent entirely. You seem to think that being able to act outside of one's alignment, means that you will always do so. That is incorrect. A good role-player knows this, and I am certain you do as well.

You do not need the mechanics of alignment to dictate your actions. The intent of planar alignment is to provide a means of playing the game without using alignment as you moral compass, but using your own role-playing ability instead. People will make choices that do not relfect their alignement from time to time...that doesn't mean they will do it all the time, nor does it mean that they will play TN paladins.

In the very first post paladins are specifically mentioned. They have their code, which is much more strict than the planar alignment system. The good and evil subtypes are also addressed in a similar manner. These types of charcters and creatures do not have the same kind of flexibility under the planar alignment system as a typical character.

This is not a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want to. It is a tool that enables you to have greater flexibility within the alignment system without changing the rules of the game.

QuotePlenty of players can roleplay with or without alignment in the game. But alignment is, for those campaigns using it, a stricture that defines roleplaying. You are playing a "role", the alignment helps give body to the role, just as the angst over his father's murder gives body to the role of Hamlet. What OP seems to want is to claim a role, but not to have to roleplay within that roles strictures.

What the OP wants is to have the flexibility to defy alignment, when their character would defy their alignment, such as the virtuous hero who kills the villain that murdered his wife. You still claim and play your role just as you always would, but your alignment plays a less pronounced part in the definition of that role.

QuoteI think you are confusing real life and gaming. In the game right and wrong are different than in real life....

Thanks for the backhanded insult to my intellect. I am not confusing real life and gaming. I am adding a more realistic element to my gaming experience. Don't try to belittle me.

QuoteAlignment helps define the role, it provides structure and boundaries to that role. You choose, for example, to play the role of a cleric of Nerull. Are you truly roleplaying if you spend all of your time acting in a manner the rules describe as LG?
Moral and philosophical outlook should be decided upon first, then an alignment chosen to fit the background you have developed for the character. What is so hard about that? Or about roleplaying within the bounds you chose to roleplay?

If you choose to play a cleric of Nerull you should play according to the edicts of your beliefs. If you cannot do that it doesn't matter what alignment is written on your character sheet. Nor would writing an alignment on your charcter sheet make it easier for a bad role-player to do so. There is nothing challenging about alignment. It simply places restrictions on a character that limit the actions one can take under circumstances that would dictate a deviation from normal behavior, such as stress, rage, duress, or fear.

QuoteDitto for a game where the moral compass is present. Claiming to be good and acting in quantitatively evil ways is the opposite of good roleplaying.

You are the only one to have posted that someone will act in ways that are completely opposite of their alignment. I do not feel that people will. I cannot defend poor role-playing, but poor role-playing is not a symptom of this system.

QuoteWhere does OP's system advance roleplaying?
It just allows characters to act outside of the roles they have chosen, which is not good roleplaying.

Ah but there's the kicker. In this system alignment is a general moral inclination; it is not central to the role you have selected to play. It is a minor element, that plays secong fiddle to more specific philosophical choices. I am not just good or evil.

I was born under the neutral good alignment of the stars. I am thoughtful, shy, passionate, stubborn, and kind, but I have a short temper, and sometimes take things too personally. I give money to charitable organizations for children, but I feel adults should learn to take care of themselves. I hate organized religion and feel it is too prone to corruption to ever serve the greater good. I have never struck or harmed somebody who did not strike me first, except for orcs, because I hate them. That is the kind of character that would be played in this system. At times he will fit his alignment, but at times he will not. He will be played in a manner that reflects his background and philisophical bent; his alignment plays only a small part.

QuoteTo use the stage analogy, if you are given the part of Hamlet, and play the role in the manner of Launcelot Gobo, you are not playing your role well. The same is true of the player that chooses to play a paladin and acts, by RAW, in a manner consistent with TN. You are then not roleplaying, unless you have chosen to play the fallen paladin.

Yeah...and what about anything that I (or anyone else) have posted leads you to believe this is the case?

QuoteThis is not a license to do whatever you want, whenever you want to. It is a tool that enables you to have greater flexibility within the alignment system without changing the rules of the game.

The fun of using alignments is that it does place strictures upon one's character.  The fun is to navigate through the strictures, to play the role you gave yourself.  OP's system is a copout.  Best just to dump alignments, in my opinion, than make them useless. It seems to me OP's system just allows characters to act whatever way they want, with no negative consequences, and yet still allows them to use aligned spells/weapons to deal out damage to traditionally aligned foes.

QuoteWhat the OP wants is to have the flexibility to defy alignment, when their character would defy their alignment, such as the virtuous hero who kills the villain that murdered his wife. You still claim and play your role just as you always would, but your alignment plays a less pronounced part in the definition of that role.

There is nothing in the current alignment setup that prevents this.  What RAW alignment does, though, is provide a consequence if the said behavior becomes chronic.

QuoteThanks for the backhanded insult to my intellect. I am not confusing real life and gaming. I am adding a more realistic element to my gaming experience. Don't try to belittle me.

I am no more trying to belittle you than your previous comment belittled me by an implication that I, or anyone else, was sociopathic for wanting a structured alignment system in the game.  

QuoteYou are the only one to have posted that someone will act in ways that are completely opposite of their alignment. I do not feel that people will. I cannot defend poor role-playing, but poor role-playing is not a symptom of this system.

OP has opened it up to abuse.  I am just pointing out that in such a system, abuse will become rampant.  This has nothing to do with quality of roleplaying, but rather an excuse for some to avoid RAW's consequences for acting outside alognment.

QuoteAh but there's the kicker. In this system alignment is a general moral inclination; it is not central to the role you have selected to play. It is a minor element, that plays secong fiddle to more specific philosophical choices. I am not just good or evil.

Ditto for RAW.  Only RAW provides quantitative measurements for shifting alignment.
I do not know any player, good or bad at roleplaying, that defines their character primarily and solely on the basis of alignment.  Most define their character based on class and background story and experience.

QuoteYeah...and what about anything that I (or anyone else) have posted leads you to believe this is the case?

Decades of experience in gaming.  
Some things are ripe for abuse.  I see this as one of them.  The case for abuse is made in the extremes.  Maybe you would never think about abusing such a system.  Others would not be so equitable.  That is just a fact of gaming life.  WotC boards are full of gamebreaking rule variants and entities that seemed like a good idea at the time, this, in my opinion, is another.

QuoteThat lawful good character might be heroic, villainous, or anything in-between, because there is no such thing as "violating" the lawful good alignment.

This makes the whole system trite and broken, and unnecessary.  Again, why have alignments at all if they are only excuses to use aligned spells and or weapons?

QuoteI am no more trying to belittle you than your previous comment belittled me by an implication that I, or anyone else, was sociopathic for wanting a structured alignment system in the game.

The implication was that killing kittens and saying you are lawful good is sociopathic. Which it is. I addressed the behavior you described not the alignment system, or those who embrace it.

You on the other hand, stated that I was getting the real world and D&D confused. You attacked me personally. There is a profound difference. I took offense to a personal attack, while you took offense to the fact that I disagree with the rationality of your extreme examples. Just becuase there are people out there who are terrible players, does not make the system broken; they would make any system broken; they are the same people who always play CN characters now, so they can do whatever they want whenever they want.

The rest of your previous post is well put, and I have no issues with it. I will not be abusing the alignment system. Nor will anybody I play with. I do not need alignment to control my players, or as a tool to help define them. It makes me sad that some people do. This system fit's my style of play, and I will happily use it. If it doesn't fit your style of play, then that is perfectly fine by me too. However just becuase it may be abused by terrible players doesn't mean it is broken as a system. That's a player problem, which is an entirely different issue.

-Peace-

QuoteThe implication was that killing kittens and saying you are lawful good is sociopathic. Which it is. I addressed the behavior you described not the alignment system, or those who embrace it.

QuoteI don't need alignment rules to tell me what is right and what is wrong...I am personally afraid of those who do (that is sociopathic).

Actually, when you used the word personally, you inferred an attack on others.

QuoteYou on the other hand, stated that I was getting the real world and D&D confused. You attacked me personally. There is a profound difference. I took offense to a personal attack, while you took offense to the fact that I disagree with the rationality of your extreme examples.

Sorry if you took offense, but your syntax in the above quote left it quite open to doubt about whether or not you were cornfused.

QuoteJust becuase there are people out there who are terrible players, does not make the system broken; they would make any system broken; they are the same people who always play CN characters now, so they can do whatever they want whenever they want.

And OP just gave them a system where they can play a paladin and act, by RAW, CN.
Broken.
But that is just my opinion.  Yours is obviously different.

-War-

Quote-War-

LOL :jedi:

meh, chaotic neutral isn't a bonus. i mean, it's not the most powerful alignment, or anything: lawful good is just as beneficial an alignment to be. (particularly if people know that you're lawful good--reputation is a good thing.)

Congratulations, Nasty and Cymro; 14 whole posts of pointless ideological banter.  One cannot help but think that there might have been a more appropriate forum for such a discussion...

On a more relevant note: excellent work, Meepo; this really is a great system, and I intend to use it.

Quote from: Salacious AngelCongratulations, Nasty and Cymro; 14 whole posts of pointless ideological banter.  One cannot help but think that there might have been a more appropriate forum for such a discussion...

On a more relevant note: excellent work, Meepo; this really is a great system, and I intend to use it.

No free discussion of opposing viewpoints is ever pointless.  
And what better place to argue the merits of a proposed rulesystem than the very place it was rolled out?

Quote from: nastynate

Quote-War-

LOL :jedi:

I couldn't help myself. :fencing:

Not to discourage free discourse or anything, but if there's going to be a flame war, please conduct it without implying that my ideas are inane or making unsupported suppositions about my intentions.

Incidentally, I have no interest in arguing for or against any alignment system, my own included; I just want to hear feedback about what I wrote without being slammed or used as a tool of someone else's agenda.

On the other hand, if anyone has specific examples of broken things that can be accomplished with my alignment system, please point them out so that I may take them into consideration when developing it.

(Hmmm...  I should probably mention that I use all of the variant paladins from Unearthed Arcana, so I already have decidedly non-LG paladins running around even without implementing my proposed alignment system.  But please point out anything else broken.)

-Meeps-

P.S.  After the whole Convergence fiasco, it's nice to know that at least one person exists whose view is even more diametrically opposed nastynate's than my own. :)

QuoteP.S. After the whole Convergence fiasco, it's nice to know that at least one person exists whose view is even more diametrically opposed nastynate's than my own.  

 :buds: It's all good.

QuoteOn the other hand, if anyone has specific examples of broken things that can be accomplished with my alignment system, please point them out so that I may take them into consideration when developing it.

(Hmmm... I should probably mention that I use all of the variant paladins from Unearthed Arcana, so I already have decidedly non-LG paladins running around even without implementing my proposed alignment system. But please point out anything else broken.)

-Meeps-

The Paladin issue I have already pointed out above, which exists to a greater or lesser degree to all alignment restricted classes, though it his hard to pin most alignmment issues on Barbie.  

QuoteP.S. After the whole Convergence fiasco, it's nice to know that at least one person exists whose view is even more diametrically opposed nastynate's than my own.

Just call me Tabanus.   :D

QuoteCongratulations, Nasty and Cymro; 14 whole posts of pointless ideological banter. One cannot help but think that there might have been a more appropriate forum for such a discussion...

this thread[/i]? ?!

Anyways, I like the idea of astrological signs having in-game effects, but this system is a non-starter for me.  First of all, I don't see any particular problem with "traditional" alignment, though that's my own little realm of thought and there's no need to go into that here.

I am confused, however, as to exactly this system would work with and without alignment.  It appears to conflict with alignment, but be an incomplete replacement for it.  Alignment is primarily concerned with moral outlook - I am aware people here have described it as "rules" for that outlook, but it's really not.  It describes morality, it doesn't constrain it, at least when properly used.  This system, however, states at the outset that:

QuoteA creature's [astrological] alignment has nothing to do with its moral outlook.

why[/i] is essential to understanding (and probably, appreciating).

QuoteAnyways, I like the idea of astrological signs having in-game effects, but this system is a non-starter for me. First of all, I don't see any particular problem with "traditional" alignment, though that's my own little realm of thought and there's no need to go into that here.

If you do not have a problem with alignment as a system, then the astrological alignment system will not be of any significant value to you. For somebody like me, who has never liked the concept too much, then it is a nice way to pay lip service to the rules, without having to remove them.

Here are my top 4 reasons for liking this system:

1. I am not concerned with people abusing the system, to act in whatever manner they want whenever they want. Others may be. I prefer that my players build their characters around a personality of their own design, and that they remain consistent with said personality. Alignment is not essential to this type of design, and at times it makes certain concepts all but impossible.

2. I do not enjoy mediating morality or debating philosophically at the gaming table, but while using alignment (as written) such things are inevitable. ALignment slows down my games.

3. I do not like monitering my players behavior to ensure they act in a manner consistent with their alignment, or changing people's alignments when they act differently. Alignment requires regular notations, evaluations, and adjustments that I would rather not waste my time on; additionally players may object or dispute your interpretation of good/evil and law/chaos which can lead to some heated arguments.

4. I do not want to rewrite holy swords, detect evil, protection from evil, smite good, and the host of other alignment related items, spells, monsters, and class abilities. There is a quite a bit of stuff tacked on to the alignment system of D&D, and changing it all does not sound like fun to me.

So for me the astrological alignment system allows me to keep the rules largely unchanged, but also to ignore alignment when it interferes with my games. I still plan on making my players select an alignment that fits their character, but I wont (and the astrological system won't either) fault them for deviating once in a while. A paladin's code covers the things he can and cannot do, so even his alignment could be subjective, so long as he remains true to his code.

Alignment (IMHO) should be guideline for roleplaying, and little more; the rules of D&D however have made it far more important that I ever wanted it to be. This system frees me of the issues I have outlined above, in a very simple manner, that doesn't require a sweeping overhaul of the game.

The issues pointed out by others that involve players abusing the system to role-play out of character are valid, but they are not issues at my gaming table, and never have, or will be; I run a tight ship, and recruit players that fit my style of game. Poor role-playing is an unrelated issue to the astrological alignment system; poor role-players will probably take advantage of it though.

If you have concerns about the ability of your players to handle the kind of freedom this system enables, don't use it. If like me, you would like for your players to have greater freedom to role-play as they see fit, and you trust the people you play with to role-play well, then this system may work very well for you.

That's my take for what it is worth.

I suppose my real difficulty with understanding the system is simply that it doesn't seem to change the need to discuss and categorize morality.  When you say that:

QuoteSome astrological signs are universally recognized as being good, others as being evil. Some are chaotic, others are lawful. Many are neutral. Creatures born under an astrological sign of a given alignment have that same alignment

Doesn't this require a definition of good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality in the same sense that the standard system does?  If a sign is recognized as being typically "good," you still need to describe what "good" means, or else it's a meaningless definition.  If a creature is born under an evil alignment, and thus exhibits certain "behaviors" that are described as evil... well, how is that different from a traditional "evil" creature?  Sure, in the traditional system you can "reform" while in this system you cannot (save for special situations), but it seems that the same descriptions and qualifications of behavior are necessary.  "What are the tendencies of a creature born under the evil sign" is a very similar question to "what are the tendencies of an evil creature," at least to me.

I realize that there's not much further benefit to this conversation - as you said, I accept the current system and you don't.  That is, of course, perfectly fine.  From a gameplay standpoint, however, I do wonder if this system doesn't unfairly cripple alignment based effects - the power of, say, "holy smite" is contingent on evil creatures being easily recognizable.  In the case of humanoids, this is hard to determine right off the bat, but you can deduce it through their actions fairly easily.  If I go to slay the murderous tyrant, I can be almost certain he is evil, by virtue of the fact that he is a murderous tyrant.  In the case of creatures, it's even easier, as in essentially every situation if I see a goblin or demon (especially in a combat situation) I won't need any further check to see if my Holy Smite spell will work.  Your system complicates this to the point of (IMO) untenability; Holy Smite becomes a much less attractive spell when you must cast "detect evil" first every time you use it to be sure that they are of the right sign, something that (unlike regular alignment) you cannot determine immediately.  A cleric in combat is not going to bother with a detect evil spell; he's going to crack some heads with spells that are guaranteed to hurt the target, like flame strike or call lightning, because the value of alignment spells in a situation where alignment can't be readily ascertained from behavior and creature type is very low indeed.

So, I don't think the system succeeds in preserving the value of "holy swords, detect evil, protection from evil, smite good, and the host of other alignment related items, spells, monsters, and class abilities."  In this case, if you don't want to use alignment, I'd recommend dropping them instead of re-writing them - it's really not a huge loss, and those abilities depend on more to be functional than just the use of the words "good, evil" and so on in an alternative system.

Except for quotes from earlier posts, the content of this post is Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d).

Quote from: MithridatesIf a sign is recognized as being typically "good," you still need to describe what "good" means, or else it's a meaningless definition...  "What are the tendencies of a creature born under the evil sign" is a very similar question to "what are the tendencies of an evil creature," at least to me.

not[/i] replace the existing alignment system.  Morality-based class requirements and morality-dependent spell effects are gone, but the behavioral tendencies associated with creatures of each alignment are exactly the same as they have always been.  The only difference here is that the behaviors associated with each alignment describe the average creature with that alignment, not all creatures with that alignment.

QuoteI do wonder if this system doesn't unfairly cripple alignment based effects...  I don't think the system succeeds in preserving the value of "holy swords, detect evil, protection from evil, smite good, and the host of other alignment related items, spells, monsters, and class abilities."

You are correct.  Despite speculation to the contrary, this system does intentionally weaken alignment-based spell effects.  Alignment-based detect spells now merely provide astrological readings.  Alignment-based combat spells and effects are hard to use unless you are battling creatures with alignment subtypes, creatures belonging to classes that have alignment requirements, or creatures whose dates of birth you have researched in advance.

That last point is an important feature of this system.  You'll note in the intro to the original post that this system is designed for a particular campaign setting.  In that campaign setting, knowing the astrological details about a creature's birth gives you power over that creature.  This is represented by your knowledge of the alignment-based combat spells and effects that are specifically useful against that particular creature.

Thanks for the clarifications, Epic_Meepo.  I suppose the previous arguments over the system had made me think that this was a substitute for, rather than an addition or alteration to, the existing system.  My criticism, then, is not so much of the system itself (as far as this point is concerned) but of the idea that it's a replacement for it - but if that's not an issue, fine.

As far as the reduction of power for alignment spells and effects, as you said, it of course depends on the individual setting.  However, as it was presented as a standalone system, I gave my opinion on it as standalone.  I don't agree with the unbalancing effects of the system when placed into an "ordinary" campaign (whatever that means), but in a campaign specifically designed for it, it may not be a problem.  Still, I would keep an eye out if you end up playing this setting, to see how useful these spells actually are - spells like "protection from evil" are good spells, but I'm still skeptical about whether a player would use it in this situation.  It's likely that not every opponent can be researched, and in the middle of an encounter I highly doubt that "detect evil" is going to be cast.  I mean, if "detect evil" fails, all you know is that they're not evil - they could be any one of the other alignments.  Perhaps one way to make this less problematic would be to merge the detect spells into a single "detect alignment" spell of the same level?  I'm still not sure players would go for it, but it would take some of the issue out of using alignment spells on a regular basis.

Except for quotes from earlier posts, the content of this post is Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d).

Quote from: MithridatesI highly doubt that "detect evil" is going to be cast.  I mean, if "detect evil" fails, all you know is that they're not evil - they could be any one of the other alignments.

Detect evil[/i] and similar spells are not going to be cast very much.  But there are already plenty of spells that don't get cast very much, so I'm not sure that adding a few more to the list greatly change things.  Clerics already have plenty of power without being able to holy word all over the place because they can predict that their enemies are evil.  The reduction of effectiveness of alignment-based spells only chips away at the power of spellcasters that are already on the high end of the power scale.

Also, since the paladin's code is less restrictive using the astrological alignment system, I don't think that it is too unbalancing to reduce the effectiveness of his detect evil and smite evil abilities.  He's less powerful, but more free to act in malicious ways.

QuotePerhaps one way to make this less problematic would be to merge the detect spells into a single "detect alignment" spell of the same level?  I'm still not sure players would go for it, but it would take some of the issue out of using alignment spells on a regular basis.

I was actually considering adding a cleric spell that just flat-out reveals a creature's alignment, but I'm not sure that would be necessary.  Clerics are still very powerful, even without being able to frequently use their alignment-based combat spells.

Quote from: Epic_MeepoAlso, since the paladin's code is less restrictive using the astrological alignment system, I don't think that it is too unbalancing to reduce the effectiveness of his detect evil and smite evil abilities.  He's less powerful, but more free to act in malicious ways.

In what way would the paladin's code be less restrictive?  How does the astrological alignment system change the fact that he is required to do good?

This is my other problem with the system.  I know that your system allows people born under good signs to qualify for good classes, but I would find that ridiculous in my campaign - a blackguard derives his power from doing and being evil, and the limitation on alignment is only there to remind people of that.  Likewise, a paladin's power and distinctive abilities come from his commitment to good and law; his code is a code of doing what is good and lawful.  It just doesn't make sense to me to allow people who act neither good nor lawful to take a class powered by goodness and lawfulness.

Except for quotes from earlier posts, the content of this post is Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d).

Quote from: MithridatesIn what way would the paladin's code be less restrictive?  How does the astrological alignment system change the fact that he is required to do good?

Likewise, a paladin's power and distinctive abilities come from his commitment to good and law; his code is a code of doing what is good and lawful.  It just doesn't make sense to me to allow people who act neither good nor lawful to take a class powered by goodness and lawfulness.[/blockquote]

Absolutely.  In campaigns where the paladin is 'powered' by the forces of absolute Law and Good, it wouldn't make sense for people who act in non-lawful-good ways to be paladins.  When running a campaign where moral truths exist and are universally known to mortals, I would recommend not using astrological alignment at all.

On the other hand, campaigns of other sorts might focus on moral relativism.  In these campaigns, no mortal fully understands absolute Law or absolute Good.  Paladins are 'powered' not by these principles, but by their own faith in these principles.  Whether or not some distant deity of Law and Good agrees with their interpretation is irrelevant, because the power of a paladin is in the paladin's soul, not in a direct divine gift that can be revoked.

It is my hope that my astrological alignment system can work in that second kind of campaign.  As for the first type of camapaign, you are right in that it clearly would not make sense.

(Incidentally, astrological alignment is going to be an optional rule in the campaign that I am working on.  GMs who don't like it can just ignore it, because nothing in the setting depends on it to work properly.)

Fair enough.  The answer "well, it works in my campaign" is the "answer zero" that can solve anything - and if it works, that's dandy.  As far as what I think, which I suppose was your original question, I think I already answered that in my other posts - it wouldn't be my choice.  I'll be interested to hear how it turns out for your players. :)

@nastynate: Why do you use alignment?  Is it really that much of a pain to make some small changes?  Cut out some spells, downgrade others, toss out the paladin, is this really too much work?

Silvercat: Can't speak for others...but one of the things that makes DnD a little tough on us homebrew guys is the way that certain assumptions about the worldview get worked right into the mechanics. Class restrictions, alignment-based special abilities, spell descriptors, damage resistance, and so on.

And some of the concepts and flavor are still worth keeping, too. The idea of a Holy Champion (i.e., paladin) isn't something you'd necessarily want to toss out. If your campaign wants to retain any kind of concept of demons, angels, exemplars, etc. then you probably need to have some forms of magic to deal with these things. It's certainly easiest to stick

I've got my own take on alignment that tries to separate the game mechanical aspects (class limits, spells, DR) from the character behavior aspects (which should be up to the player anyway). That's not necessarily the alignment system I'd gin up from scratch, but it is close enough to work with.

Excellent first post snakefing.  Can you explain more on the system you use?

Did I mention that I did go through the trouble of removing alignment completely. It is a bit of a hassle, and some things do come up that can't be tackled in a straightforward manner right away. In many ways, I think Epic Meepo's system is preferable over my own more rigid solution, if only because it is far more elegant within the system of D&D rules as it stands. In this WotC thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=451574) you can see some of my considerations and decisions on this issue, and comments made to them by other people.

@ SilvercatMoonpaw: have you removed alignment completely? What were your solutions for the problems that occur?

@ snakefing: I'm also interested in your system?

Túrin

Well, calling my concept a system is a little excessive. It's more like an approach to work within the existing system, while reducing the tendency of D&D to pigeonhole characters within one alignment or another. Lots of perfectly reasonable characters have different facets to their personality, and don't fit neatly into the categories.

My take is to separate out the game mechanical effects from the behavior/personality elements. That way, the player can be as creative as they want in their characterizations, without fear that the game mechanics will emphasize one aspect of their character over another.

Specifically, I take it that all the game mechanical effects (alignment magic, damage resistance, etc) refer to a "spiritual aura" which is determined, not by your behavior, but by a character's alignment with spiritual powers (generally speaking, deities and/or creatures from the Outer Planes). Normal creatures that are native to the Prime Material, by default, do not have such an alignment unless they somehow become specifically aligned with a spiritual power.

Normal characters don't even have an alignment (as far as game mechanics go) unless they specifically choose to align themselves with some Outer Power. This could happen, for example, if they make a pact with a demon, if they are in service to some god, etc. Characters like clerics and paladins, who gain their power from some external source, will usually have an alignment based on the god they serve. Druids, who serve nature, will probably be prohibited from having an alignment at all (you can't serve both nature and an Outer Power at the same time).

Apart from these cases, the behavior of the character does not impact on their alignment, unless their pact or service requires them to obey certain restrictions. Even in these cases, it comes down to the DM's judgment about whether or not the character's behavior falls within the scope of their agreement, and how much the deity cares, rather than whether their actions conform to a hypothetical Platonic ideal of their alignment. So this alignment system doesn't really affect characterization or character actions, except for those few characters who have chosen to align themselves for one reason or another. And those effects are more in-game than meta-game, which makes them easier to deal with. For most characters, there isn't even a need to write down an alignment. There simply isn't a need for it unless and until they do something that gives them an alignment aura that can be detected, protected against, etc.

A character's alignment can be more or less strong, based on the extent of their involvement with the Outer Powers. A weak alignment can be detected, but such a person might still be immune (or partially immune) to protection spells or other alignment-based effects.

Doesn't this significantly weaken spells and abilities such as the holy/unholy weapon qualities that work on the basis of alignment? In other words, won't you be required to change mechanics in the end?

Quote from: Natural 20I hate to differ with popular opinion here, but I must say that I do dislike this system(referring to OP).  Although many people may adopt it, and most everyone seems enthusiastic about it, I just won't use it.  Although the current D&D alignment system has issues, a lot of them can be prevented with a good DM, and a little bit of help from any of various articles found strewn over the internet.

I dislike how alignment is determined by fate, and this system is largely screaming to be a pain.  Every PC would choose his own alignment anyway, making it match his moral views.  And if the DM made peasants alignment Evil, the player's would kill on sight.  I realize that the system could be explained, but old habits die hard.  Even if the players began to understand how the system worked, this system would greatly reduce the effectiveness of such spells as detect evil or protection from evil as alignment has no bearing upon the behavior of it's recipients.

No offense to the OP, or anyone else here, but I do think this system is more trouble than it's worth, at least for me.

And if alignment by birth WAS effective wouldn't (for example) children be slaughtered if they were born in the "wrong month"? hardly seems fair.

Instead of having astrology determine something as drastic as "good vs. evil" why not consider other alignment axes?

Kierkegaardian: "aesthetic vs. ethical"

Jungian: "intravert vs. extravert" (for obscurity's sake, the terms "id" and "ego" may be more appropriate. as fewer people know what these words mean in common language, people will be more flexible with these words' meanings. after all, half the problem with law is that most people interpret it as meaning law)

Astrological: "earth vs. air" "fire vs. water"

Azn: "yin vs. yang" (okay, VAGUE. but vague has its advantages. also, I like the idea that opposed alignments could be complimentary)

As for alignment magic... I was never really a fan of that to begin with.

Yummy. Any chance of you crunchifying any of those ideas?

Who, me?
If you insist.
You see, a paladin's "law" is very diferrent from a monk's "law" right from the getgo. One is willing to enforce on others and outside himself (extravert, aka ego) where another is more self-absorbed (intravert, aka id). Hence a paladin under my system (Kierkegaardian Jungian) would be ethical egotistical without regard for what ethical means. He could be anything from a "chaotic evil" jihadist to a "lawful evil" fascist to your typical crusading knight so long as he really BELIEVEs in it. Alignment restrictions for a monk would simply consist of "any non-extravert (aka egotistical)" due to the self-centered or balance-centered nature of meditation. Bards would be either any non-id or any egotistical (depending on how strict you want to go). Or you may limit them to "any aesthetic" or "any unethical"... though that last just sounds a little off. Likewise for the barbarian... unethical.

Sounds good. But isn't this just as limiting and restrictive as normal alignment, especially considering you want to limit class availability based on it? Also, how would you handle spells and effects based on alignment? As has already been pointed out for astrological alignment, protection from id sounds much less useful than protection from evil, and that's not even considering protection from aesthetics (a spell with such a name is sure to ruin serious gaming sessions wherever it goes ;)).

Túrin

Quote from: beejazzAnd if alignment by birth WAS effective wouldn't (for example) children be slaughtered if they were born in the "wrong month"? hardly seems fair.

1) It never happened that way in the Middle Ages, during which time certain eastern European cultures thought that children born on particular holidays were cursed.

2) Neither did large numbers of people go around slaughtering children who bore strange birthmarks that 'clearly' indicated that they were wicked beings (exception: this occasionally happened during certain inquisitions and witch hunts).

3) Neither did anyone in Asia or the ancient Middle East go about slaughtering children back in the day when the circumstances of a child's birth could indicate that the child was either a reincarnation of a powerful benevolent being or someone marked by the gods to fulfill a particular role.

4) Neither did anyone in the ancient Classical world when any number of assorted unwed mothers make the claim that their children were sired by the gods, presumably given said children supernatural powers that could potentially make them dangerous.

5) Neither does anyone in the New Age movement who believes that the forces of astrology and numerology determine certain aspects of a person's life, as determined by the date of their birth.

I designed the astrological alignment system with real-world folklore and superstition in mind. The fact that the date of one's birth does not have any real spiritual significance is, in many parts of the world, a fairly recent idea. Indeed, there are some cultures where date of birth still does have a bearing on one's spiritual make-up.

well dont get me wrong but i think stuff like this is cool butt i find it changes the game just a little too dirastically. I mean it might pose a problem to some paladin/ blackguard/ other classes that rely heavily on the opponents and thier alighnment. but thumbs up for thinking af such a cool idea keep up the good work

i agree that MOST of the time children did not get killed for stuff like the day they were born on but it did occasionally happen but most of the time the rest of the people treated them diffrent than others usually discriminating them in some way. But that is only in some cultures

Quote from: TúrinDoesn't this significantly weaken spells and abilities such as the holy/unholy weapon qualities that work on the basis of alignment? In other words, won't you be required to change mechanics in the end?

To the first, it does weaken these spells and abilities. After all, there are just fewer creatures out there that those abilities can be used on. How much weaker depends on campaign details. If you play a heavily aligned campaign (where most of the major foes and allies are aligned with major churches, demons, or what have you) then they will retain much of their power; in a less aligned campaign, not so much.

To the second, no, you aren't required to change mechanics for this. Like EMeepo, I find that clerics don't lack for things to do, just because their Protection spells aren't as effective. (Furthermore, unlike EMeepo's campaign, in mine you'll often know it when you are going up against foes that are aligned, so you can use these abilities fairly effectively in those cases.) Items with alignment powers will be somewhat less valuable, and somewhat less common, depending again on campaign details. Minor adjustments like this are quite adequate most of the time.

Also, I personally feel that the mythical flavor of these abilities is better represented when they are only effective against truly supernatural evil (good, law, chaos), and not on just any J. Random Bad Dude. So that's mostly a thematic and flavor preference that I try to put into my campaigns.

The major exception is when someone wants to play a paladin or blaggard (or some of the other aligned classes) in a campaign which is not expected to be highly aligned. Many of their class abilities (Smite, Protection from Evil, etc.) are seriously weakened. (Aside: Clerics don't suffer from this as much. They can be roleplayed as part of their society, aligned or no - whereas the paladin's primary purpose in life is to Smite Evil.) To some extent this is just a bad fit between the character and the campaign. To some extent this is mitigated by the tendency of any campaign that includes characters like this to become more and more aligned as time goes by. In some cases, I'd be willing to consider giving the character an additional granted power or something from one of his god's domains to make up for the relative weakness of their abilities.

Quote from: TúrinSounds good. But isn't this just as limiting and restrictive as normal alignment, especially considering you want to limit class availability based on it? Also, how would you handle spells and effects based on alignment? As has already been pointed out for astrological alignment, protection from id sounds much less useful than protection from evil, and that's not even considering protection from aesthetics (a spell with such a name is sure to ruin serious gaming sessions wherever it goes ;)).

Túrin

Well... no to the first question in that "ethics" "aesthetics" "id" and "ego" are a hell of alot more flexible and a hell of alot more sensible. I mean, there are violent people and fascists and communists and racists all over the place, but who the hell wakes up in the morning and thinks "I'm gonna go out there and do some evil!"?

To the second question, I've never been a big fan of alignment magic. Class features that detect evil could instead detect thoughts, magic, undead, or hostile intent. Smiting might be indiscriminate. G2G... outsiders later.

That works, but then you have effectively ditched alignment. ThereÃ,´s really no need to replace it with anything then.

Quote from: TúrinThat works, but then you have effectively ditched alignment. ThereÃ,´s really no need to replace it with anything then.

That really depends... thing is that absence of alignment based magic does not put an end to the necessity and use of an alignment system. Besides, I've got an excuse to have Paladins and a new way to define their thinking which opens up new worldviews and keeps the silly ones (like a hedonist paladin) firmly closed. Restrictions are, after all, occasionally necessary.

I was reading through this again, and I'm giving it a bump because I realized even more than before the elegance of this solution to the alignment problem (though, as the discussion clearly indicates, only for those people who actually experience such a thing as an "alignment problem"). Two questions:

Can you explain more clearly why burning an innocent person at the stake would not violate a paladin's code of conduct?

Are creatures with an alignment subtype always born in the months/years associated with that alignment. If not, how should I envision this?

Túrin

Thanks for the bump. I'm always both surprised but flattered to see this old thread keep popping up.

Quote from: TúrinCan you explain more clearly why burning an innocent person at the stake would not violate a paladin's code of conduct?

Are creatures with an alignment subtype always born in the months/years associated with that alignment?[/quote]Since pretty much all creatures with alignment subtypes come from planes matching those alignments, I had been thinking about that issue from a slightly different perspective: the normal month/year associations apply only on the Material Plane. On a plane with a non-neutral alignment, the stars are always in the matching astrological alignment; every month and year is associated with that alignment on that plane.

This was a cool concept and I've translated into my own campaign world Araneia by providing a "Star of Alignments" and descriptions of the 8 "astrological signs" which constitute the "mechanical alignments".