I still can’t decide if it bugs me or not that alignment takes up something like 1/5th of the chapter on character creation (simply due to the bulk of information being conveyed). It was originally meant to be relegated to a sidebar, but it actually proved too large for that and ended up getting all of page 11 to itself.
Of course, that’s partly because the information on alignment needs to be entirely contained in Chapter 1, whereas the rest of Chapter 1 references players out to the more detailed descriptions of ability scores, classes, races, and the like found elsewhere in the rulebook.
A couple of other options I entertained:
(1) Removing alignment entirely. I would have left “good” and “evil” descriptors in for spells and extraplanar creatures, but the basic concept of PCs having an “alignment” would have been gone. Ultimately, I decided this was too radical a departure.
(2) Just describing the two axes of alignment — good vs. evil; law vs. chaos — in general terms and not discussing each combination in detail. (This might have included an old school, x-y axis chart of alignments.) A remnant of this remains in the sidebar on page 11, but what I discovered was that new players weren’t grokking the system. They were asking a lot of clarifying questions, and that’s usually an indication that the rulebook isn’t doing its job.
What do you think?
I don’t mind if you just cut alignment for the most part or completly.
I’ve always liked alignment, but it’s one of those things that’s very easy to add back in (especially if you keep good/evil descriptors and such).
I don’t see a problem with removing it.
I’d remove it. It’s not mechanically essential. Anyone who wants to add it can do so easily enough.
The best argument I’ve seen to ditch alignment is simply this: there are no benefits to being a particular alignment, only penalties.
Alignment in its current form is really only useful to try to force on players what their PCs would or wouldn’t do. It’s a railroading tool. Sure, PCs can restrict themselves based on roleplayed morality, but is there any reward for following one’s alignment, other than getting to keep that alignment?
It seems like a system that encourages good/lawful characters to fail, and that really seems to be its only mechanical function. When is the last time you heard of an evil PC seeking rememption, or “accidentally” losing their evil alignment by performing a good act?
Changing the system would involve adding incentive to play your chosen alignment, clear rules on when alignment changes are called for, and making it somewhat difficult to fall from grace (although the lack of paladins and monks makes this a minor issue).
I like the good/evil/law/chaos quadrant. I think the grey areas in between could stand to be inferred. That would go along with clear alignment change rules, to help a player determine exactly HOW lawful they really are.
I guess it boils down to how much work do you want to put into alignment?
I’d be curious to hear your thought process as as a designer as to why you decided to keep alignment.
I think the primary mechanical function of alignment is to provide clear “good guys” and “bad guys” – fairy tale morality, if you will. Alignment penalties derive from this; if you start acting evil, you’re no longer part of team good and lose the associated perks.
A secondary function of alignment is to provide a roleplaying prop. In non-Planescape games, this is pretty much the only function of the Law-Chaos axis. Again, alignment penalties are in place to enforce consistent roleplaying.
I feel that the first function actually has a great deal of value. This isn’t Shadowrun. It’s heroic fantasy, and moral ambiguity is not by default a major part of the game. There is nothing stopping a good DM from adding it in, but having the ability to say “this is a bad guy” without needing to show all his gruesome evil acts can be useful.
I see the second function as very useful to DM’s and neutral or possibly harmful to players. Players have a long time to figure out their character’s personality, and a well-developed character never neatly fits into any alignment (as shown by the many one-character alignment grids). It also prevents the creation of a dynamic character. While alignment might be useful to a new player to get an idea how to play, an experienced player will often find it confining. A DM, however, has dozens to hundreds of characters to roleplay. Having a quick way of determining some general personality characteristics is invaluable. Got a LE sorcerer? Make him a power-behind-the-throne manipulator. Is he CE instead? Probably an egocentric, watch-the-world-burn type.
So the conclusion of all this is that I see alignment as quite valuable to the game. It is a minor addition which gives a lot of flavor to the game and a reasonable amount of utility to the DM. Using the smaller, two-axis version gives all the functionality needed in this respect. Perhaps mention that alignment is under the purview of the DM, and that the DM will assign a character an alignment based on any personality traits given by the player during character creation and actions taken in the game.
I’m with Brian. Why did you decide to stick with it, or was it simply for compatibility’s sake?
I have never, ever, ever, ever played D&D where alignment mattered (except for paladins). Not when I played AD&D in the 80s & 90s, not when I played 3e in the 00s, and it still doesn’t really matter much to me today.
I like the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic axis of Basic D&D (my current D&D of choice) because it has connotations of “Natural-Normal/Unnatural-Supernatural”. In our game, nearly everyone is Neutral. They’re not tree-hugging dirt-worshippers, they’re just guys who pursue mostly self-interest, who are basically human and down-to-earth. Your Lawful guys are unusual in that they follow a code of some kind. And your Chaotic guys are either psychopaths or some sort of uncanny being like an Elf, a demon from another world, walking dead, etc.
I like it that way because most of the time, characters are doing what they want, and run into people who want something else–boom, conflict. They might even team up with Joe Lawful for a little while, if they can stomach his code of honor. But EVERYONE teams up against the Necromancer summoning a horde of undead from the city graveyard–even some of the Chaotic guys–because that’s just a-hole behavior.
To sum up: alignment is a role-playing cue/guideline for behavior if you’re a person. And it’s a barometer of your weirdness if you’re a monster or other uncanny creature (like a wizard).
Yeah, I like the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic streamlining. It’s compatible with 3E, and it’s really all you need for most of what you want out of the game. It made Warhammer wonderfully focused on the kind of game you want out of Warhammer, and it could be good for 3E too. I mean, people want to add it back in, they can, right?
@Brian/cr0m: It can be nice to have this semi-informative touchstone for roleplaying. It can serve as an important crux in character creation for some new players insofar as it starts to make them think of the character as a role — something with its own motivations and goals and outlook on life.
It’s in this latter role (as touchstone and guide for new players) that I think it might be a feature.
Mostly, though, it stayed in the game out of a sense of tradition and compatibility. Personally, I haven’t used alignment as a penalty box since 1990 or so. (I started playing in ’89.) It was probably the first thing I got rid of when I realized that you didn’t have to follow all the rules in the book if you didn’t want to.
It’s in this sense of “vestigial mechanic” that I think it may be a bug that alignment takes up such a chunk of the character creation chapter.
I like the inclusion of alignment when it comes to character creation; it really helps me think outside of my habits. That is, I have a tendency to want to always create the same type of character who tends to always make the same decisions. When I want to challenge myself and try something new, it helps to choose an alignment first and then create a character around that alignment.
@Lee: During gameplay, alignment keeps my character from making all the same decisions that I would make in real life (thereby turning my character into a mere reflection of myself). The purpose isn’t to create clear-cut “good” or “bad” guys, but a certain inflexible moral compass (good or bad) keeps a character from becoming too “realistic”–the bane of any fantasy game.