While I would probably house-rule away alignments altogether (replacing them with a 'priority' system as I described earlier) I can see how it would be exceedingly difficult. (Last night, I think I cast a half-dozen spells [well, two] that were alignment dependent, and many of the higher-level ones are)
So, I think the important thing if you're going to keep alignments is to make sure the culture is clearly defined. If you're playing a game set in the American South in the 1850s-- dare I say that the 'neutral' position on slavery is that it's OK? I daresay that there are even characters who would align themselves as good who wouldn't view slavery as wrong.
I guess if alignment must exist (and, I do admit, your way is probably more convenient then getting rid of it entirely) the thing that must happen is to clearly define cultural rights and wrongs. Because players aren't going to be viewing the game through the eyes of a 15th century peasant, they're viewing the game though the eyes of someone who lives in the 21st century.... And our cultural standards of good and evil are VASTLY different, in some ways, than they were even a century ago.
And thank you for your opinions on true neutral-- D&D true neutral has always been TRUE STUPID to me.
My other beef? "chaotic neutral". Means that you're totally insane? Pfft. There are many people, revolutionaries, rebels, people who just hate to play by the rules-- and even hate that rules exist-- who fall into CN, without being insane in the least.
I will keep this all in mind. Definitely for my next character, whose priorities I'll figure out for sure BEFORE I get to 12th level. Whose alignment... honestly, whose alignment I could care about less.
Mostly I agree with you.
While I would probably house-rule away alignments altogether (replacing them with a 'priority' system as I described earlier) I can see how it would be exceedingly difficult. (Last night, I think I cast a half-dozen spells [well, two] that were alignment dependent, and many of the higher-level ones are)
So, I think the important thing if you're going to keep alignments is to make sure the culture is clearly defined. If you're playing a game set in the American South in the 1850s-- dare I say that the 'neutral' position on slavery is that it's OK?
I daresay that there are even characters who would align themselves as good who wouldn't view slavery as wrong.
I guess if alignment must exist (and, I do admit, your way is probably more convenient then getting rid of it entirely) the thing that must happen is to clearly define cultural rights and wrongs. Because players aren't going to be viewing the game through the eyes of a 15th century peasant, they're viewing the game though the eyes of someone who lives in the 21st century.... And our cultural standards of good and evil are VASTLY different, in some ways, than they were even a century ago.
And thank you for your opinions on true neutral-- D&D true neutral has always been TRUE STUPID to me.
My other beef? "chaotic neutral". Means that you're totally insane? Pfft. There are many people, revolutionaries, rebels, people who just hate to play by the rules-- and even hate that rules exist-- who fall into CN, without being insane in the least.
I will keep this all in mind. Definitely for my next character, whose priorities I'll figure out for sure BEFORE I get to 12th level. Whose alignment... honestly, whose alignment I could care about less.
Thanks for this ^_^