The Campaign Builder's Guild

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?