PDA

View Full Version : Replacing Alignment with Taint & Sainty-esque mechanics



RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 11:10 AM
Am I nuts for thinking something like this a good idea?

Alignment is dictated by taint-type scores, not by personality.

You have two taint scores. Purity and Sanity.

All characters start out as True Neutral (100 Sanity, 100 Purity). Characters may be morally 'good', 'evil', 'lawful', 'chaotic' even if they are True Neutral. That is their natural personality. Sanity and Purity alter that natural personality when they are out of balance (100,100 is balanced) and cause signs of physical corruption.

Purity is also called Corruption or Evil. You may make a Fortitude Save against DC 10 + taint strength or lose a number of Purity points equal to the taint strength of the location or object. You must make a saving throw after initial contact and again every 24 hours of contact afterwards.

Sanity is also called Rationality or Law. You may make a Will Save against DC 10 + taint strength or lose a number of Sanity points equal to the taint strength of the location or object. You must make a saving throw after initial contact and again every 24 hours of contact afterwards.

Extremes are dangerous to your mental and physical health. However, you can receive immunity to the physical and/or mental penalties. You gain such immunity from being Undead((No penalties from Negative Purity)), being of a Bloodline((No penalties from Sanity or Purity depending on what you gain/lose from being of that Bloodline. e.g. Thorne is protected from the positive Sanity)), or dedicating oneself to an ideal((Priests and characters with a [Class] [Blessing] feat are completely immune.))

If you lack immunity, you take a penalty equal to half the relative taint score. Unlike the variant rules this is based on, you cannot have 'items' absorb your taint((of either type)) for you.

Purity penalizes Constitution. If you hit 0 constitution, you die and become one of the undead. You are also now a NPC.\\
Sanity penalizes Wisdom. If you hit 0 wisdom, you die and become a demon. You are also now a NPC.\\

== Example ==
A TN (True Neutral) character starts with 100 Sanity and 100 Purity.

If s/he suffered 10 points of 'Chaos Taint' s/he would be at 90 Sanity, 100 Purity and suffers a -5 Wisdom Penalty.

A TN (True Neutral) character starts with 100 Sanity and 100 Purity.

If s/he suffered 10 points of 'Evil Taint' s/he would be at 100 Sanity, 90 Purity and suffers a -5 Constitution Penalty.

A TN (True Neutral) character starts with 100 Sanity and 100 Purity.

If s/he suffered 10 points of 'Good Taint' s/he would be at 100 Sanity, 110 Purity and suffers a -5 Wisdom Penalty.

A TN (True Neutral) character starts with 100 Sanity and 100 Purity.

If s/he suffered 10 points of 'Lawful Taint' s/he would be at 110 Sanity, 100 Purity and suffers a -5 Constitution Penalty.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 11:37 AM
I don't understand well the Chaos Corruption thing (at least, in normal D&D campaings - if for chaos you mean the one in WH universe..)

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 12:09 PM
It isn't really called Chaos Corruption. :P

It is more along the lines of losing impulse control and eventually going insane.

Think of it more as, you've stared into the face of enough Cthulhu wanabes you've been driven mad.

The Glyphstone
2009-04-08, 12:32 PM
One problem is that it doesn't really represent "good" people - you can only be Neutral or descending into chaos/Evil. If being Tainted/Crazy penalizes your stats, being excessively pure and/or righteous should give you a bonus (assuming you don't go so high that you lose your humanity). If there's nowhere to go but down, it's not very fun - it also seems to be permanent, with no manner of regaining your sanity/purity points.

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 01:30 PM
One problem is that it doesn't really represent "good" people - you can only be Neutral or descending into chaos/Evil.

Yes it does. This isn't Alignment in D&D.

True Neutral on this scale represents your basic personality is intact. (e.g. Mother Teresa was a good person with her basic personality intact)

Neutral Good represents someone who has had their basic personality almost completely annihilated and reformed into something that is 'EVIL BAD EVIL DIE' regardless of whether the 'evil' in question is someone jaywalking or a child who 'stole' something by taking it without asking.




If being Tainted/Crazy penalizes your stats, being excessively pure and/or righteous should give you a bonus (assuming you don't go so high that you lose your humanity).

You shouldn't get a bonus for the opposite extreme. BOTH extremes are supposed to be bad because they represent a loss of your humanity. (e.g. You start of a decent enough person, probably, and as you progress in a direction you start losing parts of yourself)

Anything taken to sufficient extremes is bad. Eating a little ice cream is good, eating only ice cream is bad.



If there's nowhere to go but down, it's not very fun - it also seems to be permanent, with no manner of regaining your sanity/purity points.
There is ways of gaining immunity and there will be a mechanic for getting rid of 'taint' (in any direction). I'm just not sure if the basic concept is 'unfun' or 'stupid'. :P

hewhosaysfish
2009-04-08, 02:57 PM
Why is the balance-point at 100 when pretty much everyone will turn into a demon/zombie long before they drop as low as 50?

chiasaur11
2009-04-08, 03:09 PM
Why is the balance-point at 100 when pretty much everyone will turn into a demon/zombie long before they drop as low as 50?

Heck, anyone but big shot heroes drops well before then.

Also, ability drain is not fun, for most groups at least.

Furthermore, why is "Good" being a psycho murderer with no concept of mercy? Seems that's more lawful-y.

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 03:19 PM
Why is the balance-point at 100 when pretty much everyone will turn into a demon/zombie long before they drop as low as 50?

1) I like the number 100.

2) Immunities. A Priest/Cleric/Paladin/etc is completely immune to the ability drain. So is someone of a supernatural bloodline (of one type anyway), so are the undead, etc.

3) You are aren't likely to die from it unless you go up to Cthulu and say 'Hi' before you can remove it.

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 03:27 PM
Heck, anyone but big shot heroes drops well before then.

Also, ability drain is not fun, for most groups at least.

Probably. Which is why you have immunity options.

Don't want the ability drain? Take a feat labeled [class] .

Admittedly, it isn't free...but those feats aren't any weaker than any of the others. They just have a code of conduct / morals clause. (e.g. If you take Lay Hands you are required to help people who share your beliefs.)



Furthermore, why is "Good" being a psycho murderer with no concept of mercy? Seems that's more lawful-y.
It isn't really "Good"...it is a limited form of [b]insanity. By becoming "Good" you are essentially losing any part of your personality other than "CRUSH EVIL! KILL THEM ALL!".

The examples I gave would probably fit someone closer to high Sanity, high Purity than average Sanity, high Purity.

If you ever watched Hellsing, Paladin Alexander Anderson would fit the concept of high Purity but not so far (yet) that he goes psycho over little things. But killing Hellsing's agents (except for Alucard who is a monster) because they associate with Alucard is kinda evil?

vicente408
2009-04-08, 04:27 PM
So... as I understand, the "Purity scale" slides between the two extremes of Excessively Pure (unhealthy obsession with cleanliness and/or perceived immorality) and Excessively Impure (filthy, amoral, corrupt).

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 04:37 PM
So... as I understand, the "Purity scale" slides between the two extremes of Excessively Pure (unhealthy obsession with destroying perceived immorality) and Excessively Impure (filthy, amoral, corrupt).

Pretty much.

Mystic Muse
2009-04-08, 05:23 PM
this depends entirely on your group. I personally would never play in a group like this because if being good is wrong I don't want to be right :smalltongue:

the system itself is interesting but not sure how many people will find it enjoyable. it also might be hard to implement correctly.

slexlollar89
2009-04-08, 05:32 PM
The concept is interesting, but IMHO it makes very little sense that you label the extreme alignment of good as unhalthy in some way. By doing so, you have just declared almost everyone insane simply becasue they thank Pelor for another day. Other than that, I ind the idea intriguing but would never use it in a game I DM... after one session, the book-keping alone for what modifiers for who is a nightmare without some kind of crazy spreadsheet deallie, and even then, you have everything else mundane to keep track of. Moreover, it requires you to balance these new feats and rules against the system you use, and the rules already implemented in that game. Good Luck.

KiwiImperator
2009-04-08, 05:40 PM
I think I like the basic premise of it, very Cthuluesque, and the implementation sounds promising if some accomadation was made for those of heroic bent. It seems to be a sort of grim look at good and evil as primal forces instead of moral standpoints, like how the Core game handles Positive and Negative energy. Both'll kill you, but both can have positive applications. Here's a question though, would bad guys be able to intentionally undertake corruption and harness it's power somehow? Is that how liches happen, an orderly and planned decay of purity coupled with magic to keep the guy from actually dying until he undergoes a metamorphosis into a lich?

On the subject of actual good and evil in such a system, I suspect the view would be that humans can't truly be epitomes of Good or Evil without changing into something else. So they can still be "good", as in good people, but they can't be... too good. Or they start losing perspective on the human element of good, and start looking at it in the same way a WWI field marshal sees his kriegspiel board.

RandomFellow
2009-04-08, 06:24 PM
this depends entirely on your group. I personally would never play in a group like this because if being good is wrong I don't want to be right :smalltongue:

the system itself is interesting but not sure how many people will find it enjoyable. it also might be hard to implement correctly.

I think the names are confusing people.

You can be True Neutral AND Good.

The Good here is referring to something other than 'good actions'.

Probably it will be hard to do well...but meh. I'm building an entire campaign setting for d20. Nigh-impossible goals (for me) are fun!


The concept is interesting, but IMHO it makes very little sense that you label the extreme alignment of good as unhalthy in some way. By doing so, you have just declared almost everyone insane simply becasue they thank Pelor for another day.

No. (See previous statement on name confusion issues)

Being Good is fine.

Being tainted to the point you are taking such an extreme view of reality that any perceived Evil must be destroyed isn't Good.



Other than that, I ind the idea intriguing but would never use it in a game I DM... after one session, the book-keping alone for what modifiers for who is a nightmare without some kind of crazy spreadsheet deallie, and even then, you have everything else mundane to keep track of.

There isn't alot of bookkeeping. o0

One, possibly two, initial saving throws. Two numbers to a character sheet.

Re-roll 24 hours later.

Maybe a second set of saving throws if you are trying to recover/destroy some mythical object steeped in chaos and evil or something.

It is less bookkeeping than 1 round of combat with a Caster BBEG and his Wizard-Guards.


I think I like the basic premise of it, very Cthuluesque, and the implementation sounds promising if some accomadation was made for those of heroic bent. It seems to be a sort of grim look at good and evil as primal forces instead of moral standpoints, like how the Core game handles Positive and Negative energy.

Ya, that was the goal. It is for a post-apocalyptic world about to witness ancient horrors (such as a world devouring Darkness which is slowly growing and can't be stopped...so far) being unleashed on the survivors as the remaining 'gods' vie for supremacy. One of the survivor's 'champions' (NPC) is basically so far gone (due to the Artifacts he's acquired and going toe to toe with an ancient 'god' or two) that he basically has lost sight of anything except for his original goal. He starts off having sacrificed thousands of souls (admittedly, they weren't human but should that matter?) to give him a chance at saving some of the remaining mortals.

Maybe re-naming things to:
Good-Evil Axis: Corrupted / Neutral / Pure
Law-Chaos Axis: Rational / Neutral / Irritational




Both'll kill you, but both can have positive applications. Here's a question though, would bad guys be able to intentionally undertake corruption and harness it's power somehow? Is that how liches happen, an orderly and planned decay of purity coupled with magic to keep the guy from actually dying until he undergoes a metamorphosis into a lich?

More or less, yes. Liches intentionally abuse the system to obtain immortality. They still use a focus object to anchor themselves to the mortal realm. It is also how any other form of 'intentional' undeath occurs.

However, it isn't purely a 'bad guy' thing in the sense that, ultimately, there could be a 'good' reason to do it.

That guy I mentioned became a Lich before 'The Event' because he realized he would never be able to wall off mortal 'reality' from the 'gods' without a lifespan measured in centuries instead of decades. If someone doesn't manage to wall out the 'gods', everyone dies.

Of course, if you become an emotionless amoral madman in the process...well better you (self sacrifice) than someone else, right? Especially if your not sure if anyone else can go down that road and hold to a specific goal for centuries.



On the subject of actual good and evil in such a system, I suspect the view would be that humans can't truly be epitomes of Good or Evil without changing into something else. So they can still be "good", as in good people, but they can't be... too good. Or they start losing perspective on the human element of good, and start looking at it in the same way a WWI field marshal sees his kriegspiel board.
That was my initial thought...but it may prove unworkable if I can't convince people that simply because something is called Good doesn't mean it is good.