Alignment Systems in RP

[Verad]

Spinning this off from the discussion of the Syndicate's morality, what alignment systems from outside tabletop RPGs do you like to use, if any, when developing characters? How do you feel those systems influence the way you play the character? Do you keep them in mind only during creation, or throughout the course of your character's RP career?

 

Some of the ones discussed in the previous thread, for clarity:

 

D&D: Probably one most people are familiar with in the form of the two-axis system, in which your character is graded along a scale of Law-Neutral-Chaos and Good-Neutral-Evil. Used in D&D where it's mechanically reinforced and there's a clear objective morality.

 

Palladium: Used across all the Palladium gamelines, this alignment system breaks down into specific categories of good, neutral, and evil - Principled and Scrupulous for good, Unprincipled and Anarchist for neutral, and Aberrant, Miscreant, and Diabolic for evil. They each have distinct codes of behavior which I don't recall because it's been years since I've cracked open my copy of RIFTS.

 

World of Darkness: There are two factors here: Nature/Demeanor, in which you pick two traits that describe your surface personality as well as who you "really" are underneath, and Morality, the rules for which varied from game to game but generally involved a sliding hierarchy of bad things that would make your Morality degrade over time.

 

Exalted/Scion: Rather than having a set morality, your characters would value certain Virtues. In Exalted, these were fairly fixed, but in Scion these could vary depending on what divine pantheon your character hailed from - a Greek Scion would value personal excellence and achievement where a Voudoun Scion would not, etc. Having a very high Virtue gave you certain benefits, but could also restrict your behavior to the point of forcing you to act counter to your immediate interests for the sake of adhering to the virtue.

 

Are there other alignment systems you rely on? What are they? I have mine, but it's very gaming-hipster, so I will wait until other people have spoken first.

[FreelanceWizard]

I typically don't use alignment/morality systems except as rough shorthand for a character's tendencies and behaviors. In game play, I find they tend to be a smidge restrictive. In general, for MMO RP, I stick to D&D and Palladium alignments, since most people know one or the other and together, they provide a more nuanced picture of a character (knowing that an Anarchist is also CG says some interesting stuff about why they act the way they do).

 

As for Palladium alignments, there was an alignment test with descriptions for Palladium running around the Internet, but I guess Kevin's notorious legal team had it taken down. The full list can be found in Rifts, probably the only Palladium game one can reasonably find these days. In brief summary, though:

• Principled: Your typical "white knight," the Principled character strives to protect the weak and aid others. They never betray anyone, refuse to lie or cheat, and believe in fairness in all things.
  
• Scrupulous: This basically good character is a typical "cop on the edge" movie hero. Scrupulous characters work within the law as much as they can, but will bend or break it if necessary to help or protect others. Principled characters won't rough up a perp to get information out of them; Scrupulous characters will.
• Unprincipled: This character is more or less good, but is highly anti-authority and values freedom very highly. They'll associate with both sides of the law as they see fit and will profit from and cheat people they see as bad, but they ultimately have a heart of gold.
  
• Anarchist: This character hates the Establishment and is out for his own good only. He'll do what it takes to shake up the system while saving his own skin, but he's not motivated by a desire to harm others -- only to be free himself.
  
• Miscreant: The difference between Miscreant and Anarchist is that the Miscreant does like harming others. Where the Anarchist doesn't really care about other people, the Miscreant views them as marks and rubes to be taken advantage of and thrown away when it's convenient.
  
• Aberrant: IMO, the most interesting Palladium alignment; the Aberrant has a strict code of honor that he plays by even as he executes his wicked schemes. He might murder your family, but that's because you killed one of his henchmen, and that's the appropriate trade in his mind. If he offers you hospitality, take it, because he won't betray his word. Aberrant is the "bad guy" version of Principled.
  
• Diabolic: The psychopathic murderer, the power at all costs guy, the burn the world for fun guy -- these are all Diabolic characters, who will do whatever they want whenever they want because they just enjoy hurting people. The Diabolic, unlike the Miscreant, doesn't typically view people as means to an end; he views them as toys, and playing with them is an end in and of itself.
  

[111]

My favorite alignment system (and my favorite RPG) is the one in Shadowrun. That is to say, there isn't one. All characters are various flavors of criminals, and no rules hinge upon your morality. You just do whatever you think your character would do in a situation.

 

There are however two stats which are used to track it somewhat. Street Cred is essentially your character's reputation. This can come from a number of sources, but it generally means your character is reliable, trustworthy, will help you out in a pinch, won't snitch, etc etc. It is gained through play, and can be used in various etiquette type rolls, or to convince people of things, but it can also be negative, as it makes it harder to have your character walk around the world unnoticed. Saving an orphanage might be good morals, and good street cred, but it makes it that much more likely your character will be noticed by someone you'd rather not be noticed by.

 

The other statistic, is notoriety, which is how brutal, destructive, criminal, evil, or just plain ruthless your character is. For example you might gain notoriety by killing someone who doesn't pay up after a job, or killing hostages in order to help escape from a botched raid. It can be used to help with intimidation attempts as well, as people will be scared shitless of what will happen to them. Like Street Cred it also makes your character more recognizable.

 

The thing I like about this system is that it's organic to the gameplay experience, everyone starts off as a mostly rookie shadowrunner. It also helps with the problem in some RPGs where a character might be a murder-machine, but have bad social stats, and thus can never intimidate and scare anyone. In Shadowrun, after a while, just the whisper of your characters name might have the Guards drop their guns and surrender, and the employee's not even consider hitting the alarm button.

 

It only really works well within the context of the game though. Though it could be adapted I suppose.

[Aya]

DnD is terrific except that its missing a key track to describe most player characters: Stupid.

 

Example Alignments: Stupid Good (Paladins), Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil (thieves who steal from their own party!), and my personal favorite: True Stupid.

[111]

Stupid Good (Paladins)

 

 

T_T

[Aya]

Stupid Good (Paladins)

 

 

T_T

DnD Paladins Nat! And just the ones my friends always played at least

[Meghatron]

I  could have a lot to say on this topic, but it isn't very organized and most of it boils down to me thinking that alignment systems don't jive well with the human condition in general. Morality across cultures, the fact that 'evil' folk often believe their actions are righteous and 'good' people can have unpleasant personalities or reasons for being good, they're all reasons why I don't use any sort of organised alignment system for making characters.

[Meghatron]

Stupid Good (Paladins)

 

 

T_T

D: My hearty agreement! Aw. *cuddles her old, forgotten Lead-By-Example pally of the Morninglord*

[Eva]

I really dislike "alignment" in RP settings not only because it slaps a label or tries to pigeonhole characters in various ways, but also because more dynamic characters can change over time.

 

When I do use them, I tend to think of the two-axis D&D system, but rather than 3 hard categories for each forming a tidy tic-tac-toe board, I look upon each axis more as a spectrum upon which characters my fall where they will, and migrate over time as events transpire which may help define or shape them.

 

It's easier for me to define characters by their deeds and the psychology that exists behind them - what motivates them, and why. This isn't always a clear-cut "good vs. evil" or "order vs. chaos", etc. It may bear mention that "good" and "evil" mean different things to different people (e.g. different characters are generally going to view their deeds as serving some good, yet still may often be in opposition with one another).

 

TL;DR: Alignment labels/metrics bug me.

[L'lani Tyata]

Spinning this off from the discussion of the Syndicate's morality, what alignment systems from outside tabletop RPGs do you like to use, if any, when developing characters? How do you feel those systems influence the way you play the character? Do you keep them in mind only during creation, or throughout the course of your character's RP career?

 

Some of the ones discussed in the previous thread, for clarity:

 

D&D: Probably one most people are familiar with in the form of the two-axis system, in which your character is graded along a scale of Law-Neutral-Chaos and Good-Neutral-Evil. Used in D&D where it's mechanically reinforced and there's a clear objective morality.

 

Palladium: Used across all the Palladium gamelines, this alignment system breaks down into specific categories of good, neutral, and evil - Principled and Scrupulous for good, Unprincipled and Anarchist for neutral, and Aberrant, Miscreant, and Diabolic for evil. They each have distinct codes of behavior which I don't recall because it's been years since I've cracked open my copy of RIFTS.

 

World of Darkness: There are two factors here: Nature/Demeanor, in which you pick two traits that describe your surface personality as well as who you "really" are underneath, and Morality, the rules for which varied from game to game but generally involved a sliding hierarchy of bad things that would make your Morality degrade over time.

 

Exalted/Scion: Rather than having a set morality, your characters would value certain Virtues. In Exalted, these were fairly fixed, but in Scion these could vary depending on what divine pantheon your character hailed from - a Greek Scion would value personal excellence and achievement where a Voudoun Scion would not, etc. Having a very high Virtue gave you certain benefits, but could also restrict your behavior to the point of forcing you to act counter to your immediate interests for the sake of adhering to the virtue.

 

Are there other alignment systems you rely on? What are they? I have mine, but it's very gaming-hipster, so I will wait until other people have spoken first.

 

If I use one of them I tend to use D&D and/or WoD as a base. It depends on the sort of RP I'm making the character for. Lately I have dropped stating an alignment Reactions are simply based on what's happened or what's going on in a particular moment. While my characters do shift slightly they don't usually follow one alignment path long enough for a major shift before their decisions start to shift back.

[Verad]

DnD is terrific except that its missing a key track to describe most player characters: Stupid.

 

Example Alignments: Stupid Good (Paladins), Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil (thieves who steal from their own party!), and my personal favorite: True Stupid.

I'd argue that describes as many players as it does player-characters, but with some affection; I've certainly played more than my fair share of Stupid Blank characters.

[Aya]

DnD is terrific except that its missing a key track to describe most player characters: Stupid.

 

Example Alignments: Stupid Good (Paladins), Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil (thieves who steal from their own party!), and my personal favorite: True Stupid.

I'd argue that describes as many players as it does player-characters, but with some affection; I've certainly played more than my fair share of Stupid Blank characters.

They're often the most amusing characters in a party, who else drives people to do such ridiculous things? :-]

[Verad]

My favorite alignment system (and my favorite RPG) is the one in Shadowrun. That is to say, there isn't one. All characters are various flavors of criminals, and no rules hinge upon your morality. You just do whatever you think your character would do in a situation.

 

There are however two stats which are used to track it somewhat. Street Cred is essentially your character's reputation. This can come from a number of sources, but it generally means your character is reliable, trustworthy, will help you out in a pinch, won't snitch, etc etc. It is gained through play, and can be used in various etiquette type rolls, or to convince people of things, but it can also be negative, as it makes it harder to have your character walk around the world unnoticed. Saving an orphanage might be good morals, and good street cred, but it makes it that much more likely your character will be noticed by someone you'd rather not be noticed by.

 

The other statistic, is notoriety, which is how brutal, destructive, criminal, evil, or just plain ruthless your character is. For example you might gain notoriety by killing someone who doesn't pay up after a job, or killing hostages in order to help escape from a botched raid. It can be used to help with intimidation attempts as well, as people will be scared shitless of what will happen to them. Like Street Cred it also makes your character more recognizable.

 

The thing I like about this system is that it's organic to the gameplay experience, everyone starts off as a mostly rookie shadowrunner. It also helps with the problem in some RPGs where a character might be a murder-machine, but have bad social stats, and thus can never intimidate and scare anyone. In Shadowrun, after a while, just the whisper of your characters name might have the Guards drop their guns and surrender, and the employee's not even consider hitting the alarm button.

 

It only really works well within the context of the game though. Though it could be adapted I suppose.

 

Those must be the result of later editions, last one I played was 3rd, I think, back in the early 00's. They also seem like an effective mechanic for dealing with the usual sudden but inevitable betrayals that I recall being the major plot element of all of our campaigns. Are the two stats interlinked? Like, being more Notorious gives you less Street Cred based on your actions?

 

I feel like Essence could also be seen as a morality system within Shadowrun. Essence is very much about dealing with the human condition, but it's more of a metric of how human you, the character, remain in the face of increasing cybernetic augmentation. Cyberpunk 2020 did something similar, albeit more explicitly, by including the possibility of reaching a state of "cyberpsychosis" when you lost too much of your original self. 

 

Obviously, that's not really very helpful within the context of FF14, except that it indicates that alignment and morality systems can model morality beyond "how much of a jerk are you to other people." Perhaps something could be devised, for those so inclined, to indicate the state of a character's connection to Hydaelyn, and what, if any, effect that has on the character.

[Verad]

I really dislike "alignment" in RP settings not only because it slaps a label or tries to pigeonhole characters in various ways, but also because more dynamic characters can change over time.

 

When I do use them, I tend to think of the two-axis D&D system, but rather than 3 hard categories for each forming a tidy tic-tac-toe board, I look upon each axis more as a spectrum upon which characters my fall where they will, and migrate over time as events transpire which may help define or shape them.

 

It's easier for me to define characters by their deeds and the psychology that exists behind them - what motivates them, and why.  This isn't always a clear-cut "good vs. evil" or "order vs. chaos", etc.  It may bear mention that "good" and "evil" mean different things to different people (e.g. different characters are generally going to view their deeds as serving some good, yet still may often be in opposition with one another).

 

TL;DR:  Alignment labels/metrics bug me.

 

This is one of the underlying problems behind applying D&D morality in particular for me - it comes from a system where there are meant to be relatively clear-cut rules for what is and isn't good, evil, law, order, etc. That's fine for D&D because they have a number of mechanical effects to reinforce the concept. It matters whether something is good or evil because there are spells that can detect them and abilities that only work for them. In MMOs that tends to be much less the case. Well, most of the time.

 

There's also the fact that alignment systems tend to have a number of underlying assumptions about what is and isn't moral behavior, even outside of D&D, that might conflict with what's going on in the MMO to which they're being applied. For example, I'm hesitant to use the Nature/Demeanor system of WoD because that system is rooted in a game that is explicitly "Gothic-Punk," and is trying to portray a setting that is cynical and corrupt; accordingly, most of the traits available in Nature and Demeanor selection imply that the character is going to be a jerk in some form. Completely okay for WoD, but in more idealistic settings - and I'd argue that, for all the dark business in FFXIV, it's trying to be quite idealistic - it starts to chafe.

[FreelanceWizard]

For example, I'm hesitant to use the Nature/Demeanor system of WoD because that system is rooted in a game that is explicitly "Gothic-Punk," and is trying to portray a setting that is cynical and corrupt; accordingly, most of the traits available in Nature and Demeanor selection imply that the character is going to be a jerk in some form. Completely okay for WoD, but in more idealistic settings - and I'd argue that, for all the dark business in FFXIV, it's trying to be quite idealistic - it starts to chafe.

 

I don't get that read from the N/D list, personally. There's quite a few that aren't like that (e.g., Visionary, Child, Judge, Architect, Jester, Bon Vivant) and some that can be taken that way (e.g., Rebel, Critic, Director) but aren't necessarily that way. I think the Gothic-Punk element of the setting is really portrayed in the degeneration system, which drags everyone down into being a callous jerk.

[Verad]

 

I don't get that read from the N/D list, personally. There's quite a few that aren't like that (e.g., Visionary, Child, Judge, Architect, Jester, Bon Vivant) and some that can be taken that way (e.g., Rebel, Critic, Director) but aren't necessarily that way. I think the Gothic-Punk element of the setting is really portrayed in the degeneration system, which drags everyone down into being a callous jerk.

 

Some of them admittedly vary based on the descriptive text, which is never quite the same between games. You can see where specific authors had far more negative opinions about the N/D based on the wording. Both the Hunter and Demon corebooks stress that the Child can be just as much a stubborn brat as an unsullied innocent, but the Hunter book's phrasing is far harsher: "An immature, selfish creature" compared to "a constant need for attention" in Demon. Similarly, Bon Vivant varies between "Always seeks excess and instant gratification" and "You may have serious matters to take care of, but there's nothing that says you can't have some fun along the way."

[FreelanceWizard]

Oh, yes, there is that. The flavor text is always a pain in WoD mechanics (never more so than Exalted). I usually ignore that stuff and just use the terms as written, but that comes again from my perspective that personality/morality mechanics should be tools for RP and should get out of the way if they get annoying.

[Mae]

I use a personal greyscale system, where I assign a 'natural/starting state' and then determine a range that I feel the character should be free to move around in that extends towards both black and white. If I find that I'm joining in RP that's closer to the darker side, the natural/starting state might start to slip that direction, and if the opposite happens, she can start moving towards the white.

 

If I were to put it in numbers, with 1 being white and 20 being black, Kara sits at 12, with a range of 4 to 14 -- her natural state, she's a bit lacking in morals and can slip to a bit worse, but she has potential to be a pretty good person.

[Aya]

In more seriousness...

 

The demands on an alignment system really depend upon the setting, and the intent of the campaign being played (which are shaped but not pre-determined by the game and setting themselves).

 

I have been critical of the DnD Alignment system in a few posts, but in reality I think their alignment system fits the typical play of the game very well (and the simplified version of 4th Edition, fits it just as well too).  When a game is largely focused on hack-and-slash, and the tug and battle between good and evil, then clear demarcation lines become not only valuable, but sometimes necessary to keep the flow of action and story clean and crisp.

 

In a world where the hosts of good and evil fight it out in person, and through mortal champions, those caught in between the two poles and aligned with neither bear a classification of their own: "neutral" serves this role handily, while I think the authors of the game take too much effort to try to carve out an idea of "neutral" philosophy, the alignments themselves serve a crucial and necessary purpose.

 

Where this begins to break down is when campaigns move away from the black-and-white, away from the over-arching story of good and evil and into territory where personal belief, susceptibility, and to where the very real line between belief and conviction is tested.  The DnD alignments are, in a sense, a sort of "loyalty", and cannot fill out in any great detail the actual philosophy of those who bear them.  In one sense you can always expand upon a character's beliefs and driving philosophy, but almost inevitably this will introduce complexity that belies the nine traditional alignments and make it difficult to pin a character to one, as must be done for game mechanic purposes.

 

Because of that tension, and the incompleteness of these alignments, I generally prefer free-form alignment.  Character's actions and decisions will have their ramifications, in most campaigns doing bad things tends to have a way of coming back on those who do them, without need of an alignment system.  It also pulls the internal conflict for those characters who feel the very real tug between doing what's best for themselves, and doing what they believe to be the right thing into the forefront much more effectively.  While a paladin who feels a pull toward vigilantism, or ending a potential future threat before it can become more powerful, or even the very human pull of forbidden lust, and this can provide excellent drama as a result, it often feels pinched by game-mechanic effects that the strict alignment system carries with it, while a free-form alignment system both makes the transgressions more likely to be committed, and their eventual ramifications more subtle (and potentially more interesting).

 

In the end, though, there really is nothing in any alignment system that cannot be dealt with by good GMs, and good players.  No matter how strict, no matter how free, no matter how important or trivial, those who craft their characters and make their decisions, and those who control the world in which the character exists, can mold their stories how they wish, massaging mechanics if and when necessary.  In that sense, every alignment system is just as flexible as it needs to be.  (Which, in the end, may make my entire post rather uninteresting )

[Roswyn]

My favorite alignment system (and my favorite RPG) is the one in Shadowrun. That is to say, there isn't one. All characters are various flavors of criminals, and no rules hinge upon your morality. You just do whatever you think your character would do in a situation.

 

There are however two stats which are used to track it somewhat. Street Cred is essentially your character's reputation. This can come from a number of sources, but it generally means your character is reliable, trustworthy, will help you out in a pinch, won't snitch, etc etc. It is gained through play, and can be used in various etiquette type rolls, or to convince people of things, but it can also be negative, as it makes it harder to have your character walk around the world unnoticed. Saving an orphanage might be good morals, and good street cred, but it makes it that much more likely your character will be noticed by someone you'd rather not be noticed by.

 

The other statistic, is notoriety, which is how brutal, destructive, criminal, evil, or just plain ruthless your character is. For example you might gain notoriety by killing someone who doesn't pay up after a job, or killing hostages in order to help escape from a botched raid. It can be used to help with intimidation attempts as well, as people will be scared shitless of what will happen to them. Like Street Cred it also makes your character more recognizable.

 

The thing I like about this system is that it's organic to the gameplay experience, everyone starts off as a mostly rookie shadowrunner. It also helps with the problem in some RPGs where a character might be a murder-machine, but have bad social stats, and thus can never intimidate and scare anyone. In Shadowrun, after a while, just the whisper of your characters name might have the Guards drop their guns and surrender, and the employee's not even consider hitting the alarm button.

 

It only really works well within the context of the game though. Though it could be adapted I suppose.

 

....Off topic but I am totally down for some 4th ed on skype or something lol.

[Kage]

My favorite alignment system (and my favorite RPG) is the one in Shadowrun. That is to say, there isn't one. All characters are various flavors of criminals, and no rules hinge upon your morality. You just do whatever you think your character would do in a situation.

 

There are however two stats which are used to track it somewhat. Street Cred is essentially your character's reputation. This can come from a number of sources, but it generally means your character is reliable, trustworthy, will help you out in a pinch, won't snitch, etc etc. It is gained through play, and can be used in various etiquette type rolls, or to convince people of things, but it can also be negative, as it makes it harder to have your character walk around the world unnoticed. Saving an orphanage might be good morals, and good street cred, but it makes it that much more likely your character will be noticed by someone you'd rather not be noticed by.

 

The other statistic, is notoriety, which is how brutal, destructive, criminal, evil, or just plain ruthless your character is. For example you might gain notoriety by killing someone who doesn't pay up after a job, or killing hostages in order to help escape from a botched raid. It can be used to help with intimidation attempts as well, as people will be scared shitless of what will happen to them. Like Street Cred it also makes your character more recognizable.

 

The thing I like about this system is that it's organic to the gameplay experience, everyone starts off as a mostly rookie shadowrunner. It also helps with the problem in some RPGs where a character might be a murder-machine, but have bad social stats, and thus can never intimidate and scare anyone. In Shadowrun, after a while, just the whisper of your characters name might have the Guards drop their guns and surrender, and the employee's not even consider hitting the alarm button.

 

It only really works well within the context of the game though. Though it could be adapted I suppose.

 

....Off topic but I am totally down for some 4th ed on skype or something lol.

More offtopic but i bought the 5th? ed book cause Nat told me about it and I want a game ; ;

[LiadansWhisper]

In more seriousness...

 

The demands on an alignment system really depend upon the setting, and the intent of the campaign being played (which are shaped but not pre-determined by the game and setting themselves).

 

I have been critical of the DnD Alignment system in a few posts, but in reality I think their alignment system fits the typical play of the game very well (and the simplified version of 4th Edition, fits it just as well too).  When a game is largely focused on hack-and-slash, and the tug and battle between good and evil, then clear demarcation lines become not only valuable, but sometimes necessary to keep the flow of action and story clean and crisp.

 

In a world where the hosts of good and evil fight it out in person, and through mortal champions, those caught in between the two poles and aligned with neither bear a classification of their own: "neutral" serves this role handily, while I think the authors of the game take too much effort to try to carve out an idea of "neutral" philosophy, the alignments themselves serve a crucial and necessary purpose.

 

Where this begins to break down is when campaigns move away from the black-and-white, away from the over-arching story of good and evil and into territory where personal belief, susceptibility, and to where the very real line between belief and conviction is tested.  The DnD alignments are, in a sense, a sort of "loyalty", and cannot fill out in any great detail the actual philosophy of those who bear them.  In one sense you can always expand upon a character's beliefs and driving philosophy, but almost inevitably this will introduce complexity that belies the nine traditional alignments and make it difficult to pin a character to one, as must be done for game mechanic purposes.

 

Because of that tension, and the incompleteness of these alignments, I generally prefer free-form alignment.  Character's actions and decisions will have their ramifications, in most campaigns doing bad things tends to have a way of coming back on those who do them, without need of an alignment system.  It also pulls the internal conflict for those characters who feel the very real tug between doing what's best for themselves, and doing what they believe to be the right thing into the forefront much more effectively.  While a paladin who feels a pull toward vigilantism, or ending a potential future threat before it can become more powerful, or even the very human pull of forbidden lust, and this can provide excellent drama as a result, it often feels pinched by game-mechanic effects that the strict alignment system carries with it, while a free-form alignment system both makes the transgressions more likely to be committed, and their eventual ramifications more subtle (and potentially more interesting).

 

In the end, though, there really is nothing in any alignment system that cannot be dealt with by good GMs, and good players.  No matter how strict, no matter how free, no matter how important or trivial, those who craft their characters and make their decisions, and those who control the world in which the character exists, can mold their stories how they wish, massaging mechanics if and when necessary.  In that sense, every alignment system is just as flexible as it needs to be.  (Which, in the end, may make my entire post rather uninteresting )

 

You really need to keep in mind that every alignment system - regardless of the system you are looking at - is created with the idea in mind that the GM/DM/Storyteller will be making the ultimate call as to whether something causes an alignment shift.  As such, there has to be wiggle room and things left undefined, because every GM is different.

 

I find that the more expanded information on D&D alignments actually provides a really nice framework within which I can build a character's story.  Sometimes having absolutes isn't a bad thing.  Sometimes it can make for a more interesting story.  

[Dravus]

Role-play ceases to be enjoyable for me when it comes to the point where every little thing is micro-managed and planned out in advance. I'm very much a fan of morally grey characters who seek to do the right thing despite having made some questionable decisions during their lives.

 

I don't feel as though I need to rely upon an alignment system to accomplish that, though.