Astrological Alignment

[CYMRO]

-War-

LOL :jedi:

I couldn't help myself. :fencing:

[Epic Meepo]

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. :)

[Soup Nazi]

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.  

 :buds: It's all good.

[CYMRO]

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-

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.  

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.

Just call me Tabanus.   :D

[Polycarp]

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...

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:

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

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

[Soup Nazi]

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.

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.

[Polycarp]

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:

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

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.

[Epic Meepo]

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).

If 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.

I 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.

[Polycarp]

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.

[Epic Meepo]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Polycarp]

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.

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.

[Epic Meepo]

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).

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?

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.)

[Polycarp]

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. :)

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

@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?

[snakefing]

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.