Talk:Alignment Without Alignment (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

Sulacu dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

There are potential issues one can have with the alignment system. The ethical axis of law vs. chaos is a bit of a crapshoot at times and on many gaming tables it will shoehorn all the characters into one of like six archetypes. The answer I feel is to take a relativist approach and reduce alignment-based restrictions to their most basic level, divorced from character-building decisions entirely; helping these people is a good thing. Bringing these smugglers to justice is a lawful act. Casting this soul-ripping spell is an evil thing to do. The answer however is NOT to make more archetypes for characters to be shoehorned in. But even if I have to rate this article for its own merits; most of these aren't even alignments. They're quirks. Tropes. Things that you decide your character to be for the sake of roleplaying and that should under no circumstance be governed by rules. I mean, being a toy-loving gadgeteer doesn't say anything about howmany puppies you kissed or howmany testicles you have added to your trophy necklace this week, and sycophants are really good at singing to the tunes of others, so don't tell me that any sort of lawful alignment can't stand in for that?

Spanambula dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

Alignment is like politics: some people don't care, and some people have Strong Views. Or you could say Alignment is like religion: it's not bad in and of itself but it's prone to a lot of misinterpretation which can lead to lots of arguments. I'm of the camp that says it's not broken and doesn't need fixing, just maybe some clarification for those who struggle with it. Naturally therefore, I find myself in agreement with both Leziad and Eiji-kun's comments and critiques. You could call these a bunch of things, Archetypes, Motivations, Dominant Characteristics, but none of these really function the way alignment does, and as such isn't a good replacement for it. Like Eiji said, a reader can see what you're trying to do, it just doesn't work.

Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

This is a joke without the April Fool tags. It also conflict with everything from prestige class, enjoy being pigeonholed in an alignment if you want a class which require you to be Evil or NG). There also no balance, ideally you want two or three for each possible mechanical alignment but evil only has a single one (which is NE (making any feat or class which require LE or CE impossible to get). Overall the joke fall flat, some terms seem incorrect like Brain-Sucking (mind flayer ref?) or Gun Bunny (a slang for soldier with mortar, not sure what the joke is there), although it seem more likely I just didn't get it.

Title Change

I had to move it due to the title, otherwise the page was "Alignment With" in the "Hopefully" category, which doesn't exist. Those () marks man... -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

About the article itself...

So looking over it, the intention is right but it's a bit of a mess. It's more all over the place than the actual alignment system and you can be sure that you probably missed something somewhere.

You might be better off with an allegiance system. It's not that you're LG, you're "aligned with celestial forces", which covers however wide a swathe. You're not LN, you're "aligned with nation X", and follow their laws. And so on and so forth. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(EDIT) I decided to clarify a bit more what I mean by allegiance systems. Technically this is not a new idea, others have done it. But allegiance tells you what guides your character and their motivations the most. I'm gonna rough out an allegiance system right now. Here we go.

Allegiance to...

People or a Person: You act because you follow the footsteps of another. This could be a loved one, or it could just be following your fellow party bros.

Nation: You follow a flag and whatever ideals they possess or claim to possess. You could be a nationalistic American, which could range from the proud soldier to the jingoistic redneck. This could range from good or evil, but the point is you're not doing it for a person or people, but "for Murica". Or Eberron. Whatever.

Religion: This is like a nation, but not limited to borders but rather the dogma of a certain religion. Again, this would vary greatly with whatever alignment you actually have but you perform acts "because God said so". This replaces all the good and evil, law and chaos. If you pledge yourself to Asmodeus, well then you will be associated with devils and the sort, so that's how you work it with current D&D mechanics. Also, "religion" can also cover dedication to the concept of good, evil, etc, so gods aren't required.

Self: This is like people or person, but the person is yourself. It's a selfish nature, but it can range from true neutral self preservation to being very selfish to the point of psychopathy.

And... actually that's all the things I could think of. Four allegiances, pretty simple, but each one composed of dozens of different subcategories as needed. I suppose you could have multiple allegiances too, but that would complicate things and sometimes different allegiances might come in conflict, where you have to choose one. Do you honor your religion, which says not to do something that your nation says you should do? Classic moral conflict.

Anyway, yeah, current system is a poo. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think allegiance-based alignment is a good thing, for one simple reason; it imposes upon you the moral and ethical compass of another. That's like saying you're a jerk purely because your boss Buck Fuckwad the human-trafficking merchant is a jerk, and he probably is in most situations, but he just happened to have bought you from your parents so that the rest of the family could avoid starvation and perhaps if you make yourself of particular use he'll send the occasional care package back home.

What if your allegiance is yourself? You can't just say your allegiance is to yourself and then not provide a measure of your own moral character; that's absolutely meaningless. There are plenty of good people that work for their personal benenfit, and I'm sure there are many evil people that discard their selves to further the agenda of some terrible god.

And what if there are conflicting allegiences? Is the protagonist of Papers Please an evil jerkwad because he turns away numerous imperiled innocents for the greater good of an Orwellian regime that thinks nothing of mass shootings and forced labour, or is he a good man for doing everything he can to keep his wife and children fed in times of extreme social tension? Most people have a bunch of allegiances that vye for control, whether it's family, king and country, God, or yourself, and oftentimes which of these are given precedence is the true measure of character. Unfortunately, without a clear definition of all these potential factions, you might as well be anyone.

The alignment system we have is pretty lacking, but at least it's enough to provide a tentative clue as to your moral and ethical standing independent of external factors. --Sulacu (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I should stress that I prefer either alignment, or no alignment. But I figure if he could have variants, the allegiance ones is one of the cleaner ones. Mind you it does very little to tell if the person is good or bad or whatever, so much as gives them a flag to stand under. Which in the case of spells and effects may be enough to be "smite all those with the flag of fiends" even if they are somehow a good person or "this magic sword only listens to those dedicated to the religion of wabbajack" even if they are abnormally lawful for followers of wabbajack. But yes, good points. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)