PDA

View Full Version : Zeal's Expanded Alignment System



sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 01:26 AM
This is my own version of the alignment system. It keeps much the same, but also changes much. Don't expect everything here to line up with the PHB, or BoED/BoVD, or FC1/FC2. All those sources were consulted in making this, and much was used, but the goal was to reform the system, not merely reproduce it.


PREFACE

Alignments are a touchy subject. We all recognize that they don't correspond to the real world all that well, but at the same time they're an integral part of 3.5 and earlier. The battle between good and evil is central to much heroic fantasy, and D&D is fundamentally a heroic fantasy game. You've got Mechanus and Limbo, Celestia and the Abyss. Devils war against Demons, and Yugoloths assist both sides. Red Dragons are temperamental and vicious, Hobgoblins are organized and cruel, Lammasu are noble and look out for others, and Unicorns are gentle but unpredictable. Alignment is never going to capture all the variation we see, but unless we have the names and personalities of every single monster memorized (a sisyphean task), alignment is a useful abstraction and gives us a quick starting point. It also lets us do certain things (Detect Chaos, Smite Evil, Desecrate, Word of Chaos) that often make for good gameplay.

However, as many will be quick to point out, the default system has some critical flaws. Many of the terms are poorly described and poorly understood, and it's a very stark "black and white" worldview. The class that's most tied up with the alignment system, the Paladin, is one that's famous for causing all sorts of difficulties when he starts turning teammates over to the King's Justice for petty theft, or smiting them with a longsword for telling a lie. Many players also take their alignment as an excuse to do anything (known to some as the CN Rogue Fallacy). There's also a lack of distinction made between a corrupt peasant and a champion of the blackest hells.

That's where this comes in. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement, it's easy to play with, and it's close to the actual system. The system needs an improvement, for the reasons listed above and for the sheer contentiousness of it. Probably no other part of the game inspires so many arguments. Many of the fixes, though, create difficulty at the table. They're hard to arbitrate (percentile alignment, subjective ethics), or require a significant change to the system (removing alignment entirely), or both (factions and philosophies instead of alignments). This system tries to walk the line between what's easy to play with and what improves the more difficult wrinkles.



ZEAL'S EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SYSTEM

Simply put: instead of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos being on three point scales each, they're on five point scales.

Exalted: "I am a good person!"
Good: "I try to be a good person."
Neutral: "I'd like to be good person... but it's inconvenient sometimes." (Or, "I'm alright, I think.")
Evil: "I don't care about being a good person."
Vile: "GO TEAM EVIL!"

Axiomatic: "I AM THE LAW"
Lawful: "I am a shoemaker, as my father and his father before him."
Neutral: "You know, sometimes I just feel like getting away from it all, but I've got Molly to care for and all these bills..."
Chaotic: "Chill, dude.... it's like, no big deal... Hakuna Mutata, y'know?"
Anarchic: "Ooo, bicycle!"

- Most beings, especially the civilized races, tend away from the extremes. As a rule of thumb, perhaps 90% of humans are in the "core" alignments, with only 10% or so in the "expanded" alignments. Heroes are, of course, often the exceptions, and very often the most interesting NPCs lie outside the norm too. Still, in most campaigns even Orcs will usually not be Vile, and Elves are only rarely Anarchic. Individual campaigns may differ, of course. Consult your DM. If you are the DM and you're using the system, be aware that societies founded around these extreme alignments are likely to be quite alien by human standards. If Goblins are mostly Vile, then their culture is going to be radically different than just about anything in human history. This can be good or bad, depending on the campaign.

- Descriptions that reference alignment should be understood to also include the more extreme form. An "always lawful evil" creature like a Rakshasa may equally well be axiomatic, vile, or both. Paladins still have to be some flavour of "good" and "lawful", but can be LG, LEx, AxG, or AxEx, and still find acceptance in their order. Certain creatures, generally those with alignment based effects, may fall exclusively into the more extreme category at the DM's discretion (Demons and Devils may all be Vile, Solars may all be Exalted, Inevitables are almost certainly all Axiomatic), but this is not necessary.

- Optionally, spells and effects that interact with alignment such as "Smite" and "Protection From" generally have half effect (round down, minimum 1) against the Core alignments, and doubled effect against the Expanded alignments. Protection From Law would provide a +1 AC vs Lawful creatures, and a +4 against Axiomatic creatures.

- For "Detect Evil", the strength of the aura is computed from half the creature's HD for Evil, and double the creature's HD for Vile, except those who already have an entry on the table. If you don't use the table, have Evil people show up with only ever a "faint" aura, and Vile people show up like a demon might. "Detect Law/Chaos/Good" work in similar ways.

- Having a "faint" evil aura (as per Detect Evil) should not be considered a crime in most civilized lands, but a "moderate" or stronger one may be a crime worthy of execution in and of itself, as would being shown Vile some other way. Not all lands would have even this provision, and conversely some may not tolerate even a trace of evil. Paladins are generally instructed to follow the laws of the country they are in.

- The Paladin oath should be amended to the following: "a paladin will never knowingly associate with Vile characters".

- The Druid alignment restriction should be amended to "not Exalted, or Axiomatic, or Vile, or Anarchic". Druids are required to have their own priorities, and proper care for the earth requires at least some degree of objectiveness.

- ??? (may be expanded later)

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 01:27 AM
GOOD AND EVIL IN MORE DETAIL

This axis assumes an objective standard for goodness and evilness, the details of which may change depending on the campaign. The category things fall into depends on how closely they adhere to this objective standard.

An Exalted person always does his absolute best to adhere to the objective standard of ethical behaviour, to the best of their understanding of the situation at hand. They should be absolutely committed to the highest principals of goodness, and above mundane temptations. Exalted people are not infallible, and they may on very rare occasion violate individual tenants of the ethical code, but should only do so in the interest of the "greater good" as they understand it (though they may not always correctly predict the consequences of their actions). An Exalted human could lie to protect innocents, or permit an innocent to die to save a town, though even these actions could cause an alignment shift if repeated or critically misjudged.

A Good person is one who is aware of the ethical code, and tries to follow it. They give a few copper to the widows, are nice to those around them, and try to help out where they can. Good people make nice neighbours. However, they are still vulnerable to sloth, greed, lust, and the like. Doing good and avoiding evil is still a reasonably high priority for them, but they will occasionally do evil as well as good. A Good person could steal if in need, or commit adultery, or pass by chances to do good things. As a general rule, a Good creature should consider its own wellbeing above following the path of the light, but committing any Evil or Vile acts should still be cause for regret and such acts should not be frequent.

A Neutral person is generally one who is aware of the ethical code, and thinks it's admirable but gives it a low priority. For them, ethics are more of a suggestion. All thing being equal, a Neutral person will still usually choose the good, but are easily swayed by their own concerns, and it simply won't occur to them most of the time. They're unlikely to do evil without sufficient provocation, and will likely do good unless it's too inconvenient, but the boundaries for "provocation" and "inconvenient" are fairly low. A Neutral person generally recognizes that they aren't Exalted, but many still make excuses for themselves and think of themselves as Good, and do the occasional thing to assuage their conscience. Of course, some choose neutrality as an ideology and reject both goodness and evil, and these people function as one would expect in the traditional system.

An Evil person is generally one who completely ignores the ethical standard entirely. They have no real motivation to do good unless it personally profits them (of course, more chaotic creatures don't always need motivation to do things). Evil people are unlikely to do evil for its own sake, but certainly won't shy away from it if they think it'll benefit them or make them feel good, and generally find that it does. They'll rape if they can, donate to the orphanage if it benefits them, kill if they want to, and generally behave themselves in public. They'll usually have some sort of reason for doing good or evil, but (temptation being what it is) will usually find it much easier to discover reasons to do evil. Many deny the existence of good and evil entirely, others merely choose to ignore it.

A Vile person is a different beast entirely, someone who is outright committed to the cause of evilness. Unlike an Evil person they are almost invariably aware of the ethical standard, but see it as a challenge or adversary. Setting out to deliberately perpetrate and encourage as much evilness as they can, Vile people will commit atrocities for the sheer purpose of committing them, and avoid Good acts if they can possibly avoid it. They will generally hate Good and Exalted people for their purity, and seek to destroy it. They may have other priorities besides doing evil, and may take the long view and refrain from murdering one now if they can slaughter ten later, but in general should pass up chances for evil only with reluctance.


-----


A Note on Moral Dilemmas

Many DMs enjoy putting characters in difficult situations, to see what choice they make. These often lead to poignant storytelling and excellent RP. However, there is a danger of Exalted characters being "trapped", where every possible choice leads to a serious loss of status. In these cases, it should always be permissible for the Exalted character to take the "better" of the two options. The key question that should be asked is whether the actual action taken is Evil or Good.

For the purpose of the Expanded Alignment System, the ends do not justify the means, though it may serve drama for a character to make a difficult choice like that. If the actual action is Evil though, the person should suffer the penalties for committing an evil act, with the possibility of restoration later. For things that cannot be regained, like sacred vows and the Saint template, the Powers That Be should be encouraged to offer some sort of trade, some reward for that sacrifice, if it really resulted in some greater good. Examples might include some artifact or special ability, the chance to exchange those lost feats/levels for something new, or just recognition and praise from important NPCs. As for Vile entities, they should be willing to do an evil act even if it has otherwise positive repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest evil, they should not be overly concerned if a particular bit of mayhem and slaughter leads towards the greater good.

By parallel, a good act that has negative consequences should still be treated as if it were good. Examples include healing a mass murderer, saving a child prophesied to bring pain and torment, or willing self-sacrifice for some dark purpose. A Vile creature should strongly resist any action like that (though they may be forced by circumstances or superiors), and should regret it in the same way that a Good character might regret doing something evil for the greater good. This may also entail a loss of respect from their Vile peers, even if there is some admiration for the greater evil accomplished. As for Exalted entities, they should be willing to do a good act even if it has otherwise negative repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest good, they should not be punished for the end result of their actions (regrettable though they may be) if the actual steps they took were Good. An exception would be the aforementioned willing self-sacrifice for a dark purpose, although the issue here is more about why they were trying to accomplish it in the first place.

Unlike a good or evil act, a neutral act should be judged more by the foreseeable long term effects, if there are any. For the legally minded, Proximate Cause (http://law.jrank.org/pages/9534/Proximate-Cause.html) is a good standard here. If someone could be found negligent for their action that led to some significant good or evil, then the action should be considered at least mildly good or evil. Key here is the question of whether the good or evil result was logically foreseeable, given what they knew at the time, and of whether it led directly to that good or evil. In either case, this sort of moral negligence should not be treated as harshly as a direct action of villainy or nobleness.

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 01:28 AM
LAW AND CHAOS IN MORE DETAIL

Law and Chaos (at least, under this system) essentially boil down to three elements: respect for authority, rationality, and personal consistency. All three correlate with Law, and their opposites all correlate with Chaos. To determine someone's location on the spectrum, consider all three separately, and note that a person can have varying shades of expression within each.

"Respects Authority" is about your reaction to government and the laws of the land, but also about your respect for tradition and reaction to more immediate authority figures, like a team leader. Someone strongly in this category follows the laws, follows tradition, and follows the leader. Someone strongly outside of this category disregards the laws, disregards tradition, and disregards the leader. Both of these can be equally dangerous in the wrong circumstances (cutthroats on one end, and Minions Of Evil (tm) on the other), and both of these can be equally beneficial in the right circumstances (underground resistance movements on one end, and protectors of the realm on the other). Also note that someone with a profound disregard for authority may still follow it occasionally, if only by coincidence.

A Lawful soldier may follow her commander's orders, while a Chaotic soldier might leap upon an opportunity that presents itself. A Lawful teen may take up his father's trade, while a Chaotic teen might leave to find his own destiny. A Lawful mayor may follow the rules carefully and try to preserve the status quo, while a Chaotic mayor may embark on new projects and radical changes to the way things are traditionally done.


"Rationality" is about how balance reason and emotions. Someone strongly in this category follows their mind instead of their heart, will usually act in a thoughtful manner to further their goals (which may be selfish or selfless), and prefers to have a well-thought-out and logical plan. Someone strongly outside this category goes with their gut, will usually act in whatever way feels best in the moment, and doesn't care much for planning. Note that this has little to do with intelligence, as often times the spontaneous approach requires quicker thinking and more creativity to pull off. Also note that reason can be mislead as easily as emotions.

A Lawful commander may weigh a captured soldier's life against the risk of rescue, while a Chaotic commander may refuse to leave a teammate behind. A Lawful assassin might meticulously plan a mission, while a Chaotic assassin might go with whatever opportunity presents itself. A Lawful adventurer might tabulate the value of all loot obtained, while a Chaotic adventurer would care more about how impressive each item is, rather than its worth.


"Consistent" is about, well, consistency. People solidly in this category are reliable, predictable, and unchanging. They'll stick to the techniques they know work, and are likely to have a fairly narrow focus with a few things they do well. People solidly out of this category are fluid, dynamic, and adaptive. They like to try new things and new techniques, and are likely to have a broad and ever-expanding bag of tricks.

A Lawful swordsman may work to perfect one particular style, while a Chaotic swordsman may try learning a little of all of them. A Lawful crook may have a regular modus operandi, while a Chaotic crook may be random and unpredictable. A Lawful businessman may keep his word, while a Chaotic one may change his mind even after the contract's signed.




An Axiomatic person is solidly in all three categories. They will respect authority, they follow logic and reason, and they do not shift their behaviour easily. They don't necessarily come at the absolute top at all three, but they will be solidly in each.

A Lawful person is solidly in two categories, but middling or less in the third. It is much easier to be Lawful than it is to be Axiomatic, and there's a fair variety of expression here depending on which is the odd one out. As a whole, Lawful people will resemble their Axiomatic counterparts, but with more depth and complexity to their personality.

A Neutral person is a mix, anything that does not fall into one of the other categories. It's the broadest and most varied of the categories. If you don't know where a character lies, it's probably here.

A Chaotic person is solidly outside of at least two categories, but middling or stronger in the third. Like its counterpart, it is much easier to be Chaotic than it is to be Anarchic. As a whole, Chaotic people will resemble their Anarchic counterparts, but with a more defined and comprehensible personality.

An Anarchic person is solidly outside of all three categories. They scoff at authority, they're driven by emotion, and they're highly adaptive. Just like Axiomatic, they don't need to match the absolute in each category, but should show a definite tendency in each.

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 01:41 AM
EXAMPLES

Note that the character analysis here only represents my own opinion. If you change one of the points (say, arguing that Elan lacks respect for authority), then the final result may change accordingly.

Superman
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He's solidly on the side of "good" against "evil"
- He rarely commits evil acts (property damage follows in his wake, but rarely intentionally), even when it would help him.
- He has strong respect for authority and tradition
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Axiomatic Exalted


Batman
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He's solidly on the side of "good" against "evil"
- He commits evil acts as a matter of expediency (violence, torture, property damage), but rarely if ever out of self-interest.
- He has little regard for authority figures and laws
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Lawful Good. (note: results may vary under other systems)


Rorschach
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "good" against "evil"
- He commits frequent evil acts as a matter of expediency (violence, torture, property damage), and often out of self-interest (theft, especially of cans of beans).
- He has no regard for authority figures and laws
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Lawful Neutral. (note: results may vary under other systems)


Belkar
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "evil" against "good"
- He has no regard for authority figures and laws except out of self-interest
- He has no personal convictions beyond doing what he likes
- He has adjusted his personality several times over the course of the adventures.

Conclusion: Anarchic Vile.


Elan
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "good" against "evil"
- He commits few evil acts, usually in a good cause.
- He has moderate respect for authority figures and laws (personal excitability
aside, he seems to respect Roy)
- He has few personal convictions beyond doing what he likes
- He has shown change over time and a strong willingness to experiment.

Conclusion: Chaotic Good, possibly Chaotic Exalted (I'd have to read through the archives again to figure out)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 01:44 AM
I'm not terribly certain that you can answer the stated criticisms of the Nine Alignment System by creating a narrower system from a broader one.

For example, both Exalted & Good would count as "Good" under the Nine Alignment System; for someone who already sees "Good" as too restrictive, having the choice between Good(subset A) and Good(subset B) is not going to be appealing.

If you are trying to adapt the Objective Alignment System for people who find the Nine Alignment System restricting, then you've already lost. The reason they're unhappy is because "Good" is defined at all - they'd prefer to cloak their characters in more subjective terms, or purely descriptive ones (e.g. "selfish").

Zain
2009-12-27, 01:53 AM
I think it looks great, but is loyalty to YOUR code of conduct more lawful or chaotic if that code is at odds with the laws of the land?:smallfrown: Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 01:57 AM
I'm not terribly certain that you can answer the stated criticisms of the Nine Alignment System by creating a narrower system from a broader one.

For example, both Exalted & Good would count as "Good" under the Nine Alignment System; for someone who already sees "Good" as too restrictive, having the choice between Good(subset A) and Good(subset B) is not going to be appealing.

If you are trying to adapt the Objective Alignment System for people who find the Nine Alignment System restricting, then you've already lost. The reason they're unhappy is because "Good" is defined at all - they'd prefer to cloak their characters in more subjective terms, or purely descriptive ones (e.g. "selfish").
I wouldn't describe it as a "narrower" system (well, I wouldn't, but then it's mine :P). By giving more options, it gives a greater total expressive power. In particular, the "core" alignments are now much fuzzier. Someone who wasn't comfortable putting themselves in the same category as Unicorns and Paladins might be more comfortable with "Good" under this system, as it's a softer term and less restrictive. Those who don't like the black-and-white worldview can stay with the fuzzier "core" alignments, while those (like myself) who enjoy more exaggerated characters can have fun with the "expanded" ones, and both can function in the same world with the same rules, using pretty much everything from the official game, without undue effort.

Of course, some people already have their own solutions already. Some groups toss out alignment altogether, and either houserule or ban alignment-based spells and effects, and this too can be made to work. If they've got something that works for them, great! No need to change. However, a lot of groups don't have something that works well, and this is for them.

KillianHawkeye
2009-12-27, 01:59 AM
Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.

I agree with Zain. It should be Evil to kill somebody just because of their alignment. It's also lazy.

Sewblon
2009-12-27, 02:00 AM
I saw a system somewhere else that I think would work better than this in some respects. Instead of having Good VS Evil and Law VS chaos at all, have Greed VS Charitableness, Brutality VS Peacefulness, Honesty VS Dishonesty, and Activeness VS Laziness. Its more complicated, but the terms are less ambiguous and you can describe more complex concepts with them.

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 02:03 AM
I think it looks great, but is loyalty to YOUR code of conduct more lawful or chaotic if that code is at odds with the laws of the land?:smallfrown: Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.
I'm going to expand on Law/Chaos in an hour or two, after I take care of some other stuff. However, I will say that both personal code and laws of the land are factors, and that they will generally be equally weighted (but DMs can assign different weightings, of course).


And I never said that killing evil things is good, only that it's legal in some places. Big difference, especially in a pseudo-medieval society that isn't always as enlightened as we might want it to be. Also, I tried to make sure it was obvious that different countries vary in both directions, depending on degree of enlightenment. I only included it at all to remind DMs that "evil" isn't as bad as it is under the official system, and shouldn't generally be treated as smite-worthy by self-righteous Paladins. :smallwink:

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 02:06 AM
I saw a system somewhere else that I think would work better than this in some respects. Instead of having Good VS Evil and Law VS chaos at all, have Greed VS Charitableness, Brutality VS Peacefulness, Honesty VS Dishonesty, and Activeness VS Laziness. Its more complicated, but the terms are less ambiguous and you can describe more complex concepts with them.
I entirely agree that such a system might work far better than the D&D alignment system! However, I believe it would be difficult to integrate with base D&D. You'd have to define each of those traits for all the races and monsters, and the various alignment-based spells and effects suddenly become very complicated. This system is intended as a middle-ground, something you can use in a normal game without much effort but which still helps many of the problems.

Zain
2009-12-27, 02:13 AM
And I never said that killing evil things is good, only that it's legal

can I sig this please?

Also, i look forward to the Law vs Chaos part:smallbiggrin:

Sewblon
2009-12-27, 02:31 AM
I entirely agree that such a system might work far better than the D&D alignment system! However, I believe it would be difficult to integrate with base D&D. You'd have to define each of those traits for all the races and monsters, and the various alignment-based spells and effects suddenly become very complicated. This system is intended as a middle-ground, something you can use in a normal game without much effort but which still helps many of the problems.

I imagine that alignment-based spells, abilities, and effects would be reduced or abandoned under the system I proposed, which would necessitate that the Paladin be reworked from the ground up or abandoned, that would please many people but it would anger just as many. So you are correct, my suggestion doesn't fit with D&D RAW. But if anyone knows of a system that would be a better fit for my suggestion, please let me know.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 02:54 AM
I wouldn't describe it as a "narrower" system (well, I wouldn't, but then it's mine :P). By giving more options, it gives a greater total expressive power. In particular, the "core" alignments are now much fuzzier. Someone who wasn't comfortable putting themselves in the same category as Unicorns and Paladins might be more comfortable with "Good" under this system, as it's a softer term and less restrictive. Those who don't like the black-and-white worldview can stay with the fuzzier "core" alignments, while those (like myself) who enjoy more exaggerated characters can have fun with the "expanded" ones, and both can function in the same world with the same rules, using pretty much everything from the official game, without undue effort.
So really, what you're doing is subdividing the Nine Alignments System to provide fine tuning to the Detect Alignment school of spells? :smallconfused:

As a player, you can self-define your interpretation of a given alignment; you don't need to write down on a piece of paper that you are Exalted in order to RP that interpretation of Good. Likewise, the DM can decide how any given Good NPC acts within the strictures of the Good alignment. Your system merely provides a new mechanical label for existing subdivisons of the Nine Alignments System; useful if you want to impose new restrictions (e.g. Paladins must be Exalted; Bards cannot be Axiomatic) or if you want Detect Alignment to provide more information about the personality of a given NPC.

I mean, it's a fine way of fiddling with the Nine Alignment System, but it is certainly a subsystem, rather than a new Alignment System.

Now, if you wanted to add a new axis, you could try Funky/Square (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1196.0;wap2) :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 03:31 AM
can I sig this please?
Go ahead!


I imagine that alignment-based spells, abilities, and effects would be reduced or abandoned under the system I proposed, which would necessitate that the Paladin be reworked from the ground up or abandoned, that would please many people but it would anger just as many. So you are correct, my suggestion doesn't fit with D&D RAW. But if anyone knows of a system that would be a better fit for my suggestion, please you let me know.
GURPS, from my limited experience, might be a good one for this.


So really, what you're doing is subdividing the Nine Alignments System to provide fine tuning to the Detect Alignment school of spells? :smallconfused:

As a player, you can self-define your interpretation of a given alignment; you don't need to write down on a piece of paper that you are Exalted in order to RP that interpretation of Good. Likewise, the DM can decide how any given Good NPC acts within the strictures of the Good alignment. Your system merely provides a new mechanical label for existing subdivisons of the Nine Alignments System; useful if you want to impose new restrictions (e.g. Paladins must be Exalted; Bards cannot be Axiomatic) or if you want Detect Alignment to provide more information about the personality of a given NPC.

I mean, it's a fine way of fiddling with the Nine Alignment System, but it is certainly a subsystem, rather than a new Alignment System.

Now, if you wanted to add a new axis, you could try Funky/Square (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1196.0;wap2) :smalltongue:
Well, you sound like someone who's just fine with the alignment system as written, which is good too. I entirely agree, mature players and DMs can deal just fine with it, understand that everything is a continuum, and play accordingly. Honestly, that's almost ideal. If you've got that already, hey, keep right at it.

This is for people who are having difficulty there, whose gaming groups are not at that point. By spelling it out, making it official, you help people conceptualize the difference. You also gain more expressive power; I can describe my Lizardfolk Rogue as "Axiomatic Evil" (or "AxE"). This would tell you much more about her than I could under the core system, where she doesn't fall evenly into any of the official boxes, which imply that all Evil things are Vile, when she's really more amoral.

As a final note, it also relaxes many restrictions. Paladins don't have to be as perfect any more, since "law" and "good" are both rather broader terms now and edge farther into Neutral's territory in the old system. This also helps Monks, Warlocks, Druids, and anyone else with alignment restrictions. It doesn't remove them entirely (which wouldn't be a bad thing but might upset some groups), but it does make them a bit more flexible.

But hey, if you've got no problems with the base system, keep on rocking it up!

ericgrau
2009-12-27, 03:36 AM
My main contention is that exalted, vile, axiomatic and anarchic are extremely rare in real life, assuming they exist at all. Which leaves... some decent definitions of the regular alignments.

OTOH if - except for intentionally outrageous games - it makes players say "Oh, I don't want to play those 4 extremes" and kills the old stereotypes, I'm 110% all for this.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 03:43 AM
As a final note, it also relaxes many restrictions. Paladins don't have to be as perfect any more, since "law" and "good" are both rather broader terms now and edge farther into Neutral's territory in the old system. This also helps Monks, Warlocks, Druids, and anyone else with alignment restrictions. It doesn't remove them entirely (which wouldn't be a bad thing but might upset some groups), but it does make them a bit more flexible.
This is new.

I guess I didn't see this in your write-up so far. Were you planning on redefining these alignment restrictions to be less constraining? If so, how? :smallconfused:

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 05:29 AM
My main contention is that exalted, vile, axiomatic and anarchic are extremely rare in real life, assuming they exist at all. Which leaves... some decent definitions of the regular alignments.

OTOH if - except for intentionally outrageous games - it makes players say "Oh, I don't want to play those 4 extremes" and kills the old stereotypes, I'm 110% all for this.
I do mention this, that something like 90% of people are in the "core" alignments, with a mere 10% spread around all 16 "expanded" alignments. On the other hand, players love playing exceptions to the rules, and I know I enjoy playing really exotic personalities. But yes, the general result is to push people away from the extremes of each category, by giving them a moderate that's much easier to embrace.


This is new.

I guess I didn't see this in your write-up so far. Were you planning on redefining these alignment restrictions to be less constraining? If so, how? :smallconfused:
I mention this in the second paragraph under "The System". It's easy to miss, but basically it just says that, where the books say "Chaotic", they should be read to mean "Chaotic or Axiomatic".

Think about it this way. Under the old system, there was only one alignment out of nine that Paladins could be. That's 11% of the possibilities, assuming an even division of each. Under my system, there are 4/25 alignments that Paladins can have, or 16%. If you include the UA variants in the "Paladin" calculations, the numbers go from 44% to 64%. For Monks, the numbers move from 33% to 40%. For Warlocks, it goes from 56% to 64%. Yes, I'm a math nerd. =P

It's not a big change, but it is a change. Paladins are still shoehorned in one corner of the chart, but that corner got a bit bigger in both directions. They can still be "Axiomatic Exalted", but they can now also be "Lawful Good" and be notably imperfect in both categories without losing Paladin powers. They still have that silly oath, but whatever. Honestly, I'm all for houseruling away alignment restrictions altogether, but that's up to individual groups.





Oh, and for those interested - the Law/Chaos portion is now live. Man that took more thought that it was worth. =P

TheCountAlucard
2009-12-27, 07:56 AM
Superman
...
Conclusion: Axiomatic ExaltedMeh, depends on who's writing for him. Plus, you know, he is kind of a jerk (http://www.superdickery.com/).

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 08:06 AM
Meh, depends on who's writing for him. Plus, you know, he is kind of a jerk (http://www.superdickery.com/).
True, it definitely depends on the writer. Batman also goes up and down based on the writer, perhaps even more so. The examples should be correct given the character "facts" listed, but it's quite possible to argue those in different directions. The example is more about how the system can be applied in practice, rather than a definitive character study on those heroes.

Saph
2009-12-27, 08:07 AM
I actually quite like this. I'm not sure if I'd want to do the extra work to houserule the Protection from X line, but I like your descriptions of the alignment subtypes. Nicely done. :)

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 08:12 AM
I actually quite like this. I'm not sure if I'd want to do the extra work to houserule the Protection from X line, but I like your descriptions of the alignment subtypes. Nicely done. :)
Thanks! Coming from you, that means a lot.

Think I should list the Protection/Detect/Smite rule as optional? Or would that just weaken the whole thing by leaving too much unspecified? Individual DMs will of course make their own adjustments anyway, and I can see that being one of the more disposable parts. I think it helps tie it together in actual game (plus makes sense that Paladins would be stronger against Devils than against random bandits), but it does take an extra bit of thought and is easy to forget. What do you think?

Saph
2009-12-27, 10:31 AM
I'd just list the rules as optional, I think. The Prot X line is already pretty powerful against outsiders, and having a variable Smite is probably more trouble than its worth (instead of evil/not evil, you have to add in more variables, which slows down combat). However, having Vile show up more strongly than Evil on a Detect spell makes a lot of sense, and doesn't require much houseruling.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 11:21 AM
Think about it this way. Under the old system, there was only one alignment out of nine that Paladins could be. That's 11% of the possibilities, assuming an even division of each. Under my system, there are 4/25 alignments that Paladins can have, or 16%. If you include the UA variants in the "Paladin" calculations, the numbers go from 44% to 64%. For Monks, the numbers move from 33% to 40%. For Warlocks, it goes from 56% to 64%. Yes, I'm a math nerd. =P
But this is not what you are doing. Both Axiomatic & Lawful (and Good & Exalted) would be considered "Lawful" and "Good" under the Nine Alignments System - they are subsets of the larger field.

All you're doing here, at least as far as alignment restrictions, is moving about furniture. It's not like you are mixing alignment choices (e.g. "Axiomatic requires the killing of Chaotics" would mix Evil in with Lawful), you're just subdividing existing choices.

This really would be best displayed in picture. Well, here's a cheap attempt:
Lawful(3.5) = [Lawful(Z) + Axiomatic(Z)]
Good(3.5) = [Good(Z) + Exalted(Z)]

Exalted(Z) + Lawful(Z) = Subset{Good(3.5) + Lawful(3.5)}
In short, any Paladin who is AxG, LG, LEx, AxEx in your system could be described as accurately as "Lawful Good" under the 3.5 rules.

I guess I still don't see how your system provides different choices. Is there something wrong with my analysis? :smallconfused:

* * *

Your mechanical work with the various alignment-based spells is novel, but, as Saph noted, probably more trouble than it's worth.

Hat-Trick
2009-12-27, 12:14 PM
But this is not what you are doing. Both Axiomatic & Lawful (and Good & Exalted) would be considered "Lawful" and "Good" under the Nine Alignments System - they are subsets of the larger field.

All you're doing here, at least as far as alignment restrictions, is moving about furniture. It's not like you are mixing alignment choices (e.g. "Axiomatic requires the killing of Chaotics" would mix Evil in with Lawful), you're just subdividing existing choices.

This really would be best displayed in picture. Well, here's a cheap attempt:
Lawful(3.5) = [Lawful(Z) + Axiomatic(Z)]
Good(3.5) = [Good(Z) + Exalted(Z)]

Exalted(Z) + Lawful(Z) = Subset{Good(3.5) + Lawful(3.5)}
In short, any Paladin who is AxG, LG, LEx, AxEx in your system could be described as accurately as "Lawful Good" under the 3.5 rules.

I guess I still don't see how your system provides different choices. Is there something wrong with my analysis? :smallconfused:

* * *

Your mechanical work with the various alignment-based spells is novel, but, as Saph noted, probably more trouble than it's worth.

The point is that it's easier to imagine Batman as a paladin in this system than in the standard, or at least that's the way I'm looking at it. Sure, you can use the old system, but this system makes the alignments a little easier to understand. Looking at a character sheet with LG on it in the old system automatically set the character to contend with the paladins and other supreme good beings. Now, LG just means he's more Good than most and is more Lawful than most without being compared to Mr Morality.

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 12:17 PM
I figured that in 3.5, it was always able to represent the "mildly aligned" as well as the strongly aligned.

When I look at the alignments given to characters in campaign settings, and compare to the versions of them in D&D novels, or the sample characters in Complete Scoundrel,

I figure Lawful Good doesn't just mean nearly an archon, it can mean those who are only mildly Lawful and Good.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 12:20 PM
The point is that it's easier to imagine Batman as a paladin in this system than in the standard, or at least that's the way I'm looking at it. Sure, you can use the old system, but this system makes the alignments a little easier to understand. Looking at a character sheet with LG on it in the old system automatically set the character to contend with the paladins and other supreme good beings. Now, LG just means he's more Good than most and is more Lawful than most without being compared to Mr Morality.
So... this is more of a primer than a new alignment system?

Fair enough, I suppose.

I still think WotC should re-release the 2E PHB chapter on alignment - even with the odd definitions of True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, it must have done a better job than anything WotC has released.

HCL
2009-12-27, 12:22 PM
The basic issue is that chaotic vs lawful is bull****. Anarchism as its generally seen is not unprincipled action, but action on principles that are different from those in authority. So its both lawful and chaotic.

Also, take a look at Binders from tome of magic. They are against the mainstream religious tradition, but they are for their own tradition. So are they lawful or chaotic? Tome of magic says they are lawful.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 12:24 PM
The basic issue is that chaotic vs lawful is bull****. Anarchism as its generally seen is not unprincipled action, but action on principles that are different from those in authority. So its both lawful and chaotic.

Also, take a look at Binders from tome of magic. They are against the mainstream religious tradition, but they are for their own tradition. So are they lawful or chaotic? Tome of magic says they are lawful.
Anarchists are Chaotic. Binders are Lawful.


Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Anarchists actively seek to tear down all established authority, because they think it's the right thing to do. Chaotic.

Binders uphold their traditions and arrange their society along such lines. Lawful.

Next?

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 12:34 PM
You can be Chaotic and have traditions.

the Diaboli in Dragon Compendium, are Chaotic Outsiders, with very little in the way of organization, yet they have traditions, taboos, etc in place of laws.

The sample binder in Tome of Magic, the dwarf Morden (page 16) is Chaotic Neutral, and, if anything, Lawful or Good binders are less common than Chaotic or Evil ones. Where did you get "they are Lawful" from?

When I go right back to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1st ed) it emphasises that all Underdark societies, Chaotic and Lawful, emphasise the necessity of discipline in their people- the Law and Chaos tends to manifest itself in differences in large-scale organization.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-27, 12:45 PM
Exalted: "I am a good person!"
I believe that many bigots and hypocrites believe themselves to be "good". That's probably not what you mean by "exalted".

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 12:53 PM
"lay down life for strangers" is a common theme.

Laying down life for family, or even friends, is associated with Neutral, and occasionally Evil, but "self-sacrificing behaviour" in general is associated with Good in the PHB

"Good beings make sacrifices to help others"

Heinlein cited this in some of his books- Starship Troopers, there is a short story collection of his that has a speech in it ending with this, and I think possibly others have it.

Some other authors take a similar approach, with the "truly heroic" being those willing to spend their lives to save others that they don't even know.

Chrono22
2009-12-27, 12:57 PM
Another forumgoer created a similar alignment system.
His was a three axis system instead of a two axis one.

Normally you have good vs. evil and law vs. chaos... and combinations thereof.
The third axis had to do with how characters abide by their alignment. As an example, in his system there would be a difference between a lawful good paladin who hunts evil and stops injustice, and a lawful good paladin who protects people and assists the needy.

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 01:00 PM
So "Promoter" vs "Attacker"?

I wonder if a villain who "promotes evil" might handle differently from someone who "attacks good"?

Maybe they would be quiet and secretive, tempting others to do evil, spreading the "evil word" etc, but never seeking to actively destroy those who are good?

In the same way, a "promoter and protector of Good" would protect good people, spread the word on being good, but not actively go out after evil to physically destroy it.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-27, 01:04 PM
Another forumgoer created a similar alignment system.
His was a three axis system instead of a two axis one.

Wasn't that the Square / Funky axis?

hamishspence
2009-12-27, 01:10 PM
As given, I'd say the one presented here doesn't seem that far off from the present one, it just has "extreme" ends of each axis.

I prefer "Lawful" and "Good" as terms, to not be really extreme, given that humans aresn't supposed to "tend toward neutral" according to the PHB.

In the same way, sample Chaotic Good characters in books like the Heroes Lorebook, aren't incredibly anarchic, they are just a bit leery of authority.

The extremes might be interesting, but they seem like they should be rare in play. A modron might by Axiomatic, but the majority of paladins should be probably "only lawful"

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 01:38 PM
Wasn't that the Square / Funky axis?
That's a different one.

I guess that's kind of the issue I have with this - it doesn't add anything to the Nine Alignment System. Yes, it imposes additional constraints, but those constraints are not different in kind from the existing ones; imposed generally, and there is no net change in gameplay.
Now, you could use this system to create narrower alignment restrictions - such as altering the entire sheaf of Paladin RP restrictions to "Must be Axiomatic Exalted." Or by making Monks "Axiomatic Only."

Or you can make things less restrictive - "Barbarians/Bards cannot be Axiomatic" for example.

Still, even in these cases, I don't know if the lines between Good and Exalted are clear enough to reduce alignment arguments. With Good/Evil, you know that killing Innocents is Not Good and making actual sacrifices to protect Innocents is Not Evil. But how many times do you have to lie before you switch from Exalted to Good? Where is the dividing line - or is it just a tally of sorts? Is there any act that a Good person could do that an Exalted could never do?

Now, take the example of the "Action Alignment" system. Although I haven't seen it, you could use this principle as a genuine third axis by letting it permit action/inaction in areas that would otherwise violate the alignment rules.
Let's posit one as follows:
Active characters believe that doing something constructive now is always better than doing the right thing an hour later. An Active character is proactive in dealing with situations, always taking action on whatever information is currently available.

Active characters take charge and get things done, but they can also behave recklessly.

Passive characters believe in measuring twice and cutting once. A Passive character will not act until all necessary information has been collected and considered and will advocate delay if there is any doubt as to the correctness of a course of action.

Passive characters are thoughtful and careful in their activity, but they can also allow events to get away from them while they cogitate.

Neutral characters act when action is called for, and delay when they can afford to.
On one hand, this intrudes on the secondary characteristics of Lawful/Chaos; but, importantly, Active/Passive deals only with a secondary characteristic of the L/C Axis - the L/C Axis retains its meaning even with the introduction of a A/P Axis. Furthermore, it creates a clear distinction between the poles - an Active Good character will leap forward to defend the peasant from the angry mob while a Passive Good character will first try to figure out what is going on before doing anything. Note that, under the Nine Alignment System, it would be hard to justify a Good character doing anything but stopping the angry mob - an apparently innocent life is about to be taken - but a Passive Good character could rely upon his Passive alignment to justify being slow to act. Likewise, an Active Good character could use his Active alignment to justify cracking a few heads together to settle down the mob, even though such violence cannot be said to "respect life."
Thoughts?

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 07:38 PM
But this is not what you are doing. Both Axiomatic & Lawful (and Good & Exalted) would be considered "Lawful" and "Good" under the Nine Alignments System - they are subsets of the larger field.

All you're doing here, at least as far as alignment restrictions, is moving about furniture. It's not like you are mixing alignment choices (e.g. "Axiomatic requires the killing of Chaotics" would mix Evil in with Lawful), you're just subdividing existing choices.

This really would be best displayed in picture. Well, here's a cheap attempt:
Lawful(3.5) = [Lawful(Z) + Axiomatic(Z)]
Good(3.5) = [Good(Z) + Exalted(Z)]

Exalted(Z) + Lawful(Z) = Subset{Good(3.5) + Lawful(3.5)}
In short, any Paladin who is AxG, LG, LEx, AxEx in your system could be described as accurately as "Lawful Good" under the 3.5 rules.

I guess I still don't see how your system provides different choices. Is there something wrong with my analysis? :smallconfused:

* * *

Your mechanical work with the various alignment-based spells is novel, but, as Saph noted, probably more trouble than it's worth.
It's different because "Neutral", under this system, is a narrower category than it was under the original.

Under the old system, someone strongly Lawful was "Lawful", and someone strongly Neutral was "Neutral", and someone mildly Lawful and mildly Neutral was.... undefined. Borderline. Could go either way. If 0% is Chaos and 100% is Law and 50% is Neutral, then the chart would look something like this...

0% to 33% = Chaotic
33% to 66% = Neutral
66% to 100% = Lawful

Now, with the change, the system looks like....

0% to 20% = Anarchic
20% to 40% = Chaotic
40% to 60% = Neutral
60% to 80% = Lawful
80% to 100% = Axiomatic

...with the actual population being normally distributed across both axis (a "bell curve", for the non stats people). In other words, I'm not subdividing Law and Chaos; my intention is to redefine the whole system, cut the whole pie into narrower slices. Some people who would have been "Neutral" before will now be in the milder Core categories, since they are milder than their PHB counterparts. Evil, specifically, partially occupies a space that many might have called "Neutral" before.


I believe that many bigots and hypocrites believe themselves to be "good". That's probably not what you mean by "exalted".
Agreed. The quotes are just to try to get the idea across (and, like I said, many Neutral people believe they're Good). If you have a better suggestion, that's appreciated.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-27, 08:34 PM
It's different because "Neutral", under this system, is a narrower category than it was under the original.

Under the old system, someone strongly Lawful was "Lawful", and someone strongly Neutral was "Neutral", and someone mildly Lawful and mildly Neutral was.... undefined. Borderline. Could go either way.
But that's not so. There are no "undefined" characters - merely characters that one does not know enough about.

Alignment is not something you're supposed to reverse-engineer; it's one of the standard bits of information you put in the stat block of any character in a game. It sets the parameters for gameplay - you start within the broad area of "Lawful Good" and define yourself from there. This is why the Nine Alignment categories are so broad - you're not supposed to use it as a taxonomic system for labeling existing personas; it's a starting point, not an endpoint.

It's a fun thought experiment to assign Alignments to real life (or fictional) people, but that's obviously not how Alignment is supposed to be use. This is why when you ask someone "What alignment is the guy who beats his wife but loves his mother" they'll respond "need more information" - two datapoints do nothing to describe the broad scope that an Alignment covers.

Consequently, this is why Alignment changes were so heavily discouraged - a "changed" alignment is the result of poor roleplaying, not poor initial labeling. Likewise, this is why Alignment changes are only prescribed in the event of obvious changes in RP, not for minor acts. Paladins are a special case because they usually Fall for violating their separate Paladin Code - not for changing from LG.

* * *

Now, I'm not saying your system won't work, but I question as to whether it'll really fix any of the problems you're seeking to resolve. Unless you are playing with people who both (A) have trouble understanding the difference between "Good" and "Evil" & "Law" and "Chaos" and (B) have no trouble distinguishing between "Axiomatic" and "Lawful" & "Exalted" and "Good," then the system is either redundant (if not-A) or equally confusing (if not-B) for your players. Add in the mechanical headaches of tweaking the alignment-based spells, and I question whether anyone will really be better off.

...that's a good question actually - what problems, exactly, is your system trying to address and how does it do that? I know you laid it out before, but maybe if you can reduce it into line-by-line comparisons, it'll be clearer (to me, at least :smallredface:)

Mike_G
2009-12-27, 10:35 PM
To follow in the same vein as Oracle Hunter, I think we need to ask "What, exactly, are you trying to fix?"

Having a gradation between mild and extreme versions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos does fix the Detect Evil issue a bit, so the surly peasant and the serial killer/cultist of Vecna don't ping the same.

I think it actually waters down the idea that Paladins should be held to a higher standard by allowing them to stay in the Sorta Committed category of LG.

I don't think it does much for Roleplaying, honestly. It doesn't fix the issues that those of us who hate the black and white absolute morality idea have.

sonofzeal
2009-12-27, 10:56 PM
...that's a good question actually - what problems, exactly, is your system trying to address and how does it do that? I know you laid it out before, but maybe if you can reduce it into line-by-line comparisons, it'll be clearer (to me, at least :smallredface:)
A few problems, really.

1) Poor official definitions. The PHB only gives a few lines about each, and those lines carry little information beyond the level of cliche. "Good" and "Evil" are fairly easy to understand, at least in a sort of narrow cliche level that doesn't really address the actual ethical variation of most game worlds, but "Law" and "Chaos" don't even get that far. There's all sorts of disagreements about what it actually means to be "Neutral" as opposed to "Evil", or what "Lawful" means. Is Batman Lawful because he lives by a code and is very dedicated and organized and self-controlled, or is he Chaotic because he breaks the law with impunity and answers to no-one and often tries to change the system? It's not merely that they system lacks a certain expressive power (any abstraction does), it's that nobody's exactly sure what the terms actually mean. A few sentences in the PHB are not going to resolve this issue satisfactorily.

The issue this causes is that different people might mean things in different ways. I could say my character is "Neutral" because he's self-interested while the DM firmly interprets his actions as "Evil". I could say my character is "Chaotic" because he disagrees with the government, while the DM claims he's Lawful because he's organized and structured and self-controlled. When people mean different things by the same terms, it causes disagreements and bad feelings around the table. Nobody likes to be told that they're "playing their alignment wrong", but oftentimes that's what happens. I've seen it myself, both as player and as DM.

The solution was to provide an alternate set of definitions, that clarify the each category. The first thing to do was to, effectively, scrap the original categories. They're maintained in spirit, but mean something slightly different now. They also provide much more actual information on what people in these categories are like, take much more care in defining the terms involved, and generally do the best job I could manage of making each category unambiguous. I'm still working on Law/Chaos a bit, but I'm very happy with Good/Evil here.


2) Poor official boundaries. Okay, so let's say we all know what "Evil" is, and what "Neutral" is. Where, then, is the boundary? What is the difference between "Good with Neutral tendancies" and "Neutral with Good tendancies"? A big problem here is that the categories are so broad that the boundaries are pretty sudden. Since "Good" is the category of Unicorns and Paladins and Angels, and Neutral is the category of Formians and Lizardfolk and animals, the difference between the two is rather stark.

The issue is that players must choose one. A player with a character who is somewhat good but not strongly so might have difficulty placing them in either category. The game as written forces a choice that may not accurately reflect the character, no matter which option the player goes with.

The solution was to create levels of gradation. By putting intermediary levels in, it's now an easier choice to make. The difference between "Neutral" and "Good" is smaller now (since Good now excludes "Exalted" and is only for the moderately good), and hopefully small enough that choosing between them is unlikely to be arduous. It's still possible that someone falls halfway between "pretty neutral" and "moderately good", and that the choice is non-obvious, but it should be an easier choice than it was between the more harshly-defined categories of the official system.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-28, 01:38 AM
1) Poor official definitions. The PHB only gives a few lines about each, and those lines carry little information beyond the level of cliche.
Let's look at those lines for a second

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

. . .

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
This doesn't carry information for you? It's enough for me to answer the Batman question, anyhow:

Is Batman Lawful because he lives by a code and is very dedicated and organized and self-controlled, or is he Chaotic because he breaks the law with impunity and answers to no-one and often tries to change the system?
Does Batman respect authority or honor tradition? Not generally - his M.O. consists of repeatedly breaking the law and dispensing rough justice to "criminals" outside of the legal protections of the judicial system. Does he follow his conscience, resent being told what to do, and keep promises only when he feels like it?

He's Chaotic. Fullstop.

Consequently, this is the answer to objection #2 - the Nine Alignments actually provide clear divisions between G/E and L/C.

Do you destroy or debase innocent life? Evil.
Do you protect innocent life instead? Good.
Do you neither destroy/debase innocent life, but make no special effort to protect it? Neutral.

Do you follow The Law, or Your Heart, in important matters?
If "The Law," then Lawful
If "Your Heart," then Chaotic
If "Whatever I can get away with" then Neutral.

The sparse verbiage not quoted here is helpful in teasing out the nuances of the Alignments, but the bright lines are not that hard to see - when you consider the text.

* * *


The issue is that players must choose one. A player with a character who is somewhat good but not strongly so might have difficulty placing them in either category. The game as written forces a choice that may not accurately reflect the character, no matter which option the player goes with.

The solution was to create levels of gradation. By putting intermediary levels in, it's now an easier choice to make. The difference between "Neutral" and "Good" is smaller now (since Good now excludes "Exalted" and is only for the moderately good), and hopefully small enough that choosing between them is unlikely to be arduous. It's still possible that someone falls halfway between "pretty neutral" and "moderately good", and that the choice is non-obvious, but it should be an easier choice than it was between the more harshly-defined categories of the official system.

This is a laudable goal, but if this is what you wanted to do, you drew the lines wrong. Rather than split the extremes, you should have split the middle.

Neutral should now be 6 categories:

- Leaning Good
- Leaning Evil
- Leaning Chaotic
- Leaning Lawful
- Unaligned (G/E)
- Unaligned (L/C)

People who make a stand, make a stand; nobody who places themselves as Good is going to be confused with someone who is Evil or Neutral - they've picked their principles, and are sticking to it. However, those who aren't dedicated may experience that ambivalence you describe - and they should not be placed in the same categories as people dedicated to a particular moral viewpoint.

There is little point in a Fantasy Universe to dwell on the "maybes" - either you're fighting against the BBEG or you're for him. This is why it is Smite Evil instead of Smite Creep. After all, why bother crafting a spell that will only Smite people with unpaid parking tickets when there's anarchist necromancers turning grandma into a giant flaming skeleton?

If you want to lower the decision cost as you said, then just split up the middle so that people can get the good feeling of saying they're "kinda Good" without actually committing to a moral framework. Heck, it sounds like that's the crowd you're really aiming at anyhow - and the best thing is you don't have to fiddle with Magical Alignment much.
"Leaners" detect as minor versions of their alignment and suffer no mechanical effects from buffs/banes that target their alignment. However, Leaners will "feel good" in buff zones and "feel bad" in bane zones. If a power already affects Neutrals, then Leaning will give a save bonus/penalty depending on how you Lean.

sonofzeal
2009-12-28, 02:20 AM
This doesn't carry information for you? It's enough for me to answer the Batman question, anyhow:

Does Batman respect authority or honor tradition? Not generally - his M.O. consists of repeatedly breaking the law and dispensing rough justice to "criminals" outside of the legal protections of the judicial system. Does he follow his conscience, resent being told what to do, and keep promises only when he feels like it?

He's Chaotic. Fullstop.
Chaotic: "implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." How many of those things fit Batman, and how many flat out contradict the character as normally understood?

Neutral: "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Does that sound anything remotely like Batman at any point?

Batman falls solidly outside all three definitions given. You have to do some serious selective reading in your interpretation to make him line up with any of them.


This is a laudable goal, but if this is what you wanted to do, you drew the lines wrong. Rather than split the extremes, you should have split the middle.

Neutral should now be 6 categories:

- Leaning Good
- Leaning Evil
- Leaning Chaotic
- Leaning Lawful
- Unaligned (G/E)
- Unaligned (L/C)

People who make a stand, make a stand; nobody who places themselves as Good is going to be confused with someone who is Evil or Neutral - they've picked their principles, and are sticking to it. However, those who aren't dedicated may experience that ambivalence you describe - and they should not be placed in the same categories as people dedicated to a particular moral viewpoint.

There is little point in a Fantasy Universe to dwell on the "maybes" - either you're fighting against the BBEG or you're for him. This is why it is Smite Evil instead of Smite Creep. After all, why bother crafting a spell that will only Smite people with unpaid parking tickets when there's anarchist necromancers turning grandma into a giant flaming skeleton?

If you want to lower the decision cost as you said, then just split up the middle so that people can get the good feeling of saying they're "kinda Good" without actually committing to a moral framework. Heck, it sounds like that's the crowd you're really aiming at anyhow - and the best thing is you don't have to fiddle with Magical Alignment much.
"Leaners" detect as minor versions of their alignment and suffer no mechanical effects from buffs/banes that target their alignment. However, Leaners will "feel good" in buff zones and "feel bad" in bane zones. If a power already affects Neutrals, then Leaning will give a save bonus/penalty depending on how you Lean.
Leaners is a good way too, and I've used them in a past. I have a LE-leaning-LN rogue, and NN-leaning-CE artificer. However, I've never figured out a good method of notating that.

Also, I think you're perhaps playing a slightly different game than me (not a bad thing, just an observation). Many of my campaigns, especially those most tied up with alignments, are heavy-RP games where there is a gray zone between being for or against the BBEG. There's degrees of commitment to the cause, different motives for performing certain actions, and different end goals in mind. A few of the party have picked solid ethical stances (under my system, an AxE healer and a LV Sorcerer), but most muddle around the middle somewhere, off on the chaotic side of the spectrum, and a few were recently put in a point of having to realize that they weren't as "good" as they thought they were. In this campaign there's plenty of what you call "maybes". In a campaign where devils are the main opponent, we have at least three PCs who've willingly signed faustian contracts, and one more who's actually pretty much become a devil himself. If the BBEG showed up right now, it would get extremely confusing and there'd be betrayals and counter-betrayals on both sides.

All that said, hey, yeah, "leanings" make a nice alternative. Feel free to use it if you find it works better for you than this. I'd still recommend my expanded definitions if you run into disagreement, but that's just me.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-28, 03:19 AM
Chaotic: "implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." How many of those things fit Batman, and how many flat out contradict the character as normally understood?

Neutral: "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Does that sound anything remotely like Batman at any point?

Batman falls solidly outside all three definitions given. You have to do some serious selective reading in your interpretation to make him line up with any of them.
You're missing the emphasis in those quotes.

Implies and can are not the same as imperatives used in the sections I quoted. If they carried the same weight, then someone who is Good would always have to be altruistic, caring of the sensitivities of others, and unwilling to take a life. Obviously this is not the intent of the writers; such an assumption would create incredibly narrow Alignment categories and be a radical departure from the Nine Alignments System under TSR.

Also: I'd say Batman is all about freedom, adaptability, flexibility and being resentful of legitimate authority. And certainly, when he does fail it is because of recklessness and a hostility to being responsible to anyone but himself. But that's just me.

* * *

As for your own games - I would heavily suggest against using the Exalted/Good split if you expect your Good PCs to not oppose the BBEG. It's a bit odd for Paladins to say "Well, the Lord Necromancer is bad, but at least he makes the Magic Trains run on time." Nor should you use "lean" as a hybrid; calling someone "LG leaning NG" is begging for confused looks from your PCs. However, "Good, Leaning Lawful" provides a clear boundary - he's solidly Good, but is a bit stiffer about rules and regulation than the other NGs hanging around.

That said, you sound like you're running a mostly-Evil game. Signing deals with the Devil is just asking for a big ol' Evil stamp on your forehead - if you don't end up eating babies as a result, you're dealing with some pretty lame Devils. No problem with running an Evil game, but it's hard to argue you're using Alignment in the Good vs. Evil sense you'd see in classic Heroic Fantasy.

sonofzeal
2009-12-28, 02:08 PM
You're missing the emphasis in those quotes.

Implies and can are not the same as imperatives used in the sections I quoted. If they carried the same weight, then someone who is Good would always have to be altruistic, caring of the sensitivities of others, and unwilling to take a life. Obviously this is not the intent of the writers; such an assumption would create incredibly narrow Alignment categories and be a radical departure from the Nine Alignments System under TSR.

Also: I'd say Batman is all about freedom, adaptability, flexibility and being resentful of legitimate authority. And certainly, when he does fail it is because of recklessness and a hostility to being responsible to anyone but himself. But that's just me.
Well, let's go from the top then.

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Batman DOES tell the truth
Batman DOES keep his word
Batman does NOT respect authority
Batman does NOT honor tradition
Batman DOES judge those who fall short of their duties.

I'm not a batman expert, but I really can't think of a time when he's lied or broken promises, and he's very much the judgmental sort. You're free to disagree, but that's my understanding of the character. And given that, I'd have to do selective reading to make things line up cleanly.



Let's take a different example. I had a lizardfolk rogue once, Y'G. Y'G's tribe was cannibalistic (by which I mean they eat sentients as part of their normal diet). They're very polite about it and wouldn't do it in mixed company, but it's considered normal and acceptable to them and no dishonour to the dead. Is that then Evil or not?

Same character is an assassin from time to time. Y'G had no qualms whatsoever about killing most adults, and would do so dispassionately and without a hint of regret should it come up in her job. However, under absolutely no circumstances would she endanger the life of a sentient child, and would fight to the death to protect a child or child-like person. Is that evil since she ends some life, or good since she protects some life, or neutral because the two cancel out in some strange way?

You might have answers to these questions (most people, I think, would have an answer). I might have different answers though. My DM might have different answers still. You might argue she's Good by the standards of her tribe (willing to sacrifice herself for children), Evil by human conventions (eating people, killing adults), or Neutral. Even with the "leaning" system, it's awkward. I could write one thing down on my sheet, and later be put in a position where the DM disagrees and demands I change it.

Under my expanded systems she's solidly Evil because she rejects the universal ethical code. The things she does are not wrong to her so she's not Vile, but she's still well outside standard ethical behaviour and doesn't have any problem with that. Since she's categorized cleanly and neatly, we can move on with the game in a smooth and orderly fashion.


As for your own games - I would heavily suggest against using the Exalted/Good split if you expect your Good PCs to not oppose the BBEG. It's a bit odd for Paladins to say "Well, the Lord Necromancer is bad, but at least he makes the Magic Trains run on time." Nor should you use "lean" as a hybrid; calling someone "LG leaning NG" is begging for confused looks from your PCs. However, "Good, Leaning Lawful" provides a clear boundary - he's solidly Good, but is a bit stiffer about rules and regulation than the other NGs hanging around.

That said, you sound like you're running a mostly-Evil game. Signing deals with the Devil is just asking for a big ol' Evil stamp on your forehead - if you don't end up eating babies as a result, you're dealing with some pretty lame Devils. No problem with running an Evil game, but it's hard to argue you're using Alignment in the Good vs. Evil sense you'd see in classic Heroic Fantasy.
We're not really running a mostly-evil game. My AxE healer recently made a deal with the BBEG - five years service, not including actions that violate her vows, for the lives of five friends. A LG character might not have made the same choice, might have let those five die in exchange for the chance to strike back in revenge. Also complicating matters is that the "BBEG" was actually originally supposed to be a PC, and only really became an official badguy when other players triggered a massive series of events way ahead of the DM's plan. Up until then, my AxE healer had a certain friendly rivalry with the character, and still has hope for his redemption. So when he showed up with hostages, she negotiated. That might be considered a minor evil act, but it's allowable under my definition of Exalted. She may be in a position of having to slide down to Good or worse later, but we'll see. By calling her Exalted in the first place though, I gave a hint as to what sort of decision she might make there.


As to necromancers and trains, let's say that evilness profits a bit every time people use his trains, but that it's the fastest way for the heroes to get where they need to be to actually stop the BBEG. An Exalted character would resist using the trains and try to find some other way if possible, but might be convinced if it really is necessary. A Good character might not be entirely comfortable but would be more likely to take it as a simple matter of the greater good. A Neutral character wouldn't be bothered so much. And it wouldn't even register as a concern on an Evil character, even after pointed out to them. A Vile character might be giddily riding trains all day and encouraging others to do the same, even when it isn't the best way.

Or, lets say the BBEG has hostages, maybe he's possessing one of their friends. How willing would each one be to keep fighting if someone innocent might die?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-28, 05:58 PM
Well, let's go from the top then.

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Batman DOES tell the truth
Batman DOES keep his word
Batman does NOT respect authority
Batman does NOT honor tradition
Batman DOES judge those who fall short of their duties.

I'm not a batman expert, but I really can't think of a time when he's lied or broken promises, and he's very much the judgmental sort. You're free to disagree, but that's my understanding of the character. And given that, I'd have to do selective reading to make things line up cleanly.
Batman Discussion
Batman does not tell the truth, nor does he keep his word, out of duty - he does when he feels like it. Admittedly, Batman doesn't need to break his word a lot (not that he goes around making promises), but he's not going to let some villain go because he promised to.

You're thinking of Superman, the stereotypical LG type. He's constantly letting Lex Luthor and Co. get away because of stupid promises he made.

Like I said - you need more information, not selective reading.
But, like I said, I'm no Batman scholar, so let's deal with your other example:


You might have answers to these questions (most people, I think, would have an answer). I might have different answers though. My DM might have different answers still. You might argue she's Good by the standards of her tribe (willing to sacrifice herself for children), Evil by human conventions (eating people, killing adults), or Neutral. Even with the "leaning" system, it's awkward. I could write one thing down on my sheet, and later be put in a position where the DM disagrees and demands I change it.

Under my expanded systems she's solidly Evil because she rejects the universal ethical code. The things she does are not wrong to her so she's not Vile, but she's still well outside standard ethical behaviour and doesn't have any problem with that. Since she's categorized cleanly and neatly, we can move on with the game in a smooth and orderly fashion.
Well, your DM's arguments are absolutely wrong - relative morality has no place in an objective morality system like the Nine Alignments. Good is protecting Innocents, Evil is killing/degrading them. Neutral is neither killing nor protecting Innocents.

Nor is "moral math" the correct path - we're using words & definitions, not symbolic logic. You fall into a category, or exclude yourself from a category, depending on the most extreme forms of your activity.

So let's look at those categories:

Not Good
(1) Assassination for profit: "respect for life" generally means not taking a life unless absolutely necessary, or for a higher purpose. Money is not a higher purpose.

(2) Killing sentient beings unnecessarily: "respect for sentient beings" is unlikely to be served by putting them in the same category as cattle.

Not Evil
(1) Killing for food: Evil goes out of its way to kill or degrade innocent life. If you are killing just to eat, and not for sport, then you are not Evil.

(2) Eating the dead: Provided you're not desecrating the dead to produce unholy abominations, or otherwise "degrading innocent life" you are not Evil. Eating corpses in a respectful fashion cannot be called "degrading" of the dead.

So what does that make you? Neutral - you're Not Good, and you're Not Evil. Done and done. And it was all figured out by looking at the definitions, not some complicated and sloppy attempt of moral equivalency.

I am also skeptical of your application of your own system:

An Evil person is generally one who completely ignores the ethical standard entirely.
Didn't you say that Y'G did his best to honor the dead as he was eating them, and refused to kill children - and would, indeed protect them at the cost of her own life? Why, I'd say Y'G is Axiomatic:

An Exalted person always does his absolute best to adhere to the objective standard of ethical behaviour, to the best of their understanding.
The highlighted language is key - "to the best of their understanding" just begs for Relativistic interpretations of action. By eating the dead in a ritualistic fashion, Y'G believed she was adhering to the objective standard of ethical behavior of respecting sentient life; by protecting children she believed she was protecting innocents.

Even if you want to say "nah, she really rejected this objective standard" then you run into the problem of people who do Good things, not because of the objective standard, but because they think it is the right thing to do.
This is the main problem with trying to re-write the Alignment System - any attempt to make it more subjective can derail the concept of an objective alignment system entirely. And once you're out of the objective alignment system, adjudicating Alignment-based effects becomes nigh impossible on a consistent basis.


As to necromancers and trains, let's say that evilness profits a bit every time people use his trains, but that it's the fastest way for the heroes to get where they need to be to actually stop the BBEG. An Exalted character would resist using the trains and try to find some other way if possible, but might be convinced if it really is necessary. A Good character might not be entirely comfortable but would be more likely to take it as a simple matter of the greater good. A Neutral character wouldn't be bothered so much. And it wouldn't even register as a concern on an Evil character, even after pointed out to them. A Vile character might be giddily riding trains all day and encouraging others to do the same, even when it isn't the best way.

Or, lets say the BBEG has hostages, maybe he's possessing one of their friends. How willing would each one be to keep fighting if someone innocent might die?
This was actually an allusion to Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) - an awful, Evil man who's apologists were famous for saying "well, at least he made the trains run on time." That is to say "sure, he's Evil, but look at the nice things he's done."

Under your system, a Good character (such as a Paladin) could be one of those apologists:

A Good person is one who is aware of the ethical code, and tries to follow it. They give a few copper to the widows, are nice to those around them, and try to help out where they can. Good people make nice neighbours. However, they are still vulnerable to sloth, greed, lust, and the like. Doing good and avoiding evil is still a reasonably high priority for them, but they will occasionally do evil as well as good. A Good person could steal if in need, or commit adultery, or pass by chances to do good things. As a general rule, a Good creature should consider its own wellbeing above following the path of the light, but committing any Evil or Vile acts should still be cause for regret and such acts should not be frequent.
Do you really want a Paladin to be OK with the slaughter of Innocents, so long as the Magic Trains run on time?

Anyhow, your LG healer sounds exactly right - make a bargain under extreme duress to protect Innocents (and allies!) that won't force her to do anything against her Alignment? Heck, that's a no-brainer - what kind of Evil Overlords do you have over there anyhow? :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 08:37 AM
Batman Discussion
Batman does not tell the truth, nor does he keep his word, out of duty - he does when he feels like it. Admittedly, Batman doesn't need to break his word a lot (not that he goes around making promises), but he's not going to let some villain go because he promised to.

You're thinking of Superman, the stereotypical LG type. He's constantly letting Lex Luthor and Co. get away because of stupid promises he made.

Like I said - you need more information, not selective reading.
But, like I said, I'm no Batman scholar, so let's deal with your other example:
Well, we seem to disagree as to who exactly Batman is. About the most dishonest thing I can remember seeing him do was replacing Twoface's coin with one that reliably landed on edge.

Still, if he doesn't lie I'd say he's more Lawful than anything, and you say he lies as is Chaotic. That's rather a telling shift over something that really isn't that big a deal when you think about it.

The point is merely that many characters are either difficult to place, or controversial within a group. The fact that we're even having this argument kind of proves the point.





Well, your DM's arguments are absolutely wrong - relative morality has no place in an objective morality system like the Nine Alignments. Good is protecting Innocents, Evil is killing/degrading them. Neutral is neither killing nor protecting Innocents.

Nor is "moral math" the correct path - we're using words & definitions, not symbolic logic. You fall into a category, or exclude yourself from a category, depending on the most extreme forms of your activity.

So let's look at those categories:

Not Good
(1) Assassination for profit: "respect for life" generally means not taking a life unless absolutely necessary, or for a higher purpose. Money is not a higher purpose.

(2) Killing sentient beings unnecessarily: "respect for sentient beings" is unlikely to be served by putting them in the same category as cattle.

Not Evil
(1) Killing for food: Evil goes out of its way to kill or degrade innocent life. If you are killing just to eat, and not for sport, then you are not Evil.

(2) Eating the dead: Provided you're not desecrating the dead to produce unholy abominations, or otherwise "degrading innocent life" you are not Evil. Eating corpses in a respectful fashion cannot be called "degrading" of the dead.

So what does that make you? Neutral - you're Not Good, and you're Not Evil. Done and done. And it was all figured out by looking at the definitions, not some complicated and sloppy attempt of moral equivalency.
Again, the point was that different people would disagree. You have your own opinion, you're prefectly entitled to it, and you may in fact be right. However, the person across from you at the table might see it differently.

The issue in this case is someone who manifestly VALUES some life (children) and DEVALUES other (adults). This is going to result in difficulty either way, as you can probably see. I could put the same character through two different campaigns, and have the party convinced she's Good in one and Evil in the other, depending on what came up.

Personally, when I made the character, I put "LE" down on the sheet. She's an assassin for hire, and has absolutely no ethical qualms about her job, even if she's killing "innocents". She works for evil people, doing evil things, and goes home each night satisfied in a job well done. On further consideration, Neutral made a lot of sense too, so I talked with the DM about it and I don't think we ever reached a consensus

Anyway, point is - not cut and dry, caused some questions for us that we didn't have definitive answers for.





The highlighted language is key - "to the best of their understanding" just begs for Relativistic interpretations of action.

Ah, my apologies, my meaning wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the person might not understand the code (which is possible, but beside the point). I meant that the person might not understand the situation. If you think someone's coming to kill you, and they're really just reaching for a coin purse, I don't think you should take an alignment hit for that. You might still go to jail, but that's a different issue.

I should rewrite that to be more clear. I've also got a major reformat to the "Law" section coming too, which may change some significant points. *ponders*



This was actually an allusion to Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) - an awful, Evil man who's apologists were famous for saying "well, at least he made the trains run on time." That is to say "sure, he's Evil, but look at the nice things he's done."

Under your system, a Good character (such as a Paladin) could be one of those apologists:

Do you really want a Paladin to be OK with the slaughter of Innocents, so long as the Magic Trains run on time?

Anyhow, your LG healer sounds exactly right - make a bargain under extreme duress to protect Innocents (and allies!) that won't force her to do anything against her Alignment? Heck, that's a no-brainer - what kind of Evil Overlords do you have over there anyhow? :smalltongue:
I'm aware of Mussolini and the trains. Actually, my brain immediately went to this horrible pun (http://xkcd.com/282/).

Anyway, a "Good" character is still one who strives to uphold the ethical code, they're just more human about. Condoning atrocities for the sake of convenience is not what a Good person should be doing. Even a Neutral person, with their nodding appreciation for the ethical standard, shouldn't be entirely comfortable with that (unless the trains running on time is a significant part of their life).

A Good person is someone who generally tries to be Exalted. When I say he considers his wellbeing first, what I mean is he's unlikely to risk poverty, grievous physical injury, or significant emotional loss. He's the type of person who might really want to stand up to bullies, but be too afraid of getting beaten up or ostracized to really go for it. By contrast, an Exalted person would probably go right in there anyway, and a Neutral person might fantasize about swooping in to save the day but wouldn't seriously consider it.



As a side note, I think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" is about more than just the trains, it's a reference to producing an ordered and safe society. Apologists for him might be those who value stability over liberty. They would most likely be a subset of who respect authority strongly, and are Neutral or less on the ethical axis. Such people, of course, never think the government bloodhounds would come for them, but could be worried stiff about a burglar in the night or about missing that important interview.

megabyter5
2009-12-29, 02:09 PM
WOAH!


...I had an idea VERY MUCH like that, once. I even used the same terms for the expanded alignments (taken, of course, from BoED, BoVD, and the names of the lawful/chaotic weapon enhancements though, so they were the obvious ones).

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 03:00 PM
Again, the point was that different people would disagree. You have your own opinion, you're prefectly entitled to it, and you may in fact be right. However, the person across from you at the table might see it differently.
This is always a troubling response to hear when discussing an objective alignment system. What good is it to call something objective if "YMMV" is the standard response?

This is why I always argue from text - it's the only way you can argue when discussing objective topics. For example, your point of variable valuations of life has no bearing on Good/Evil; there's not a scrap of text to support this as a valid criteria for aligning someone on the Good/Evil axis. At best, you can argue someone that values their own lives over the lives of others is Evil - but even there, only at an extreme point. Furthermore, since everyone places different values on life in D&D, it's hard to use proof of relative values as any sort of argument regarding alignment.

Case in point: if you held all lives to be equal, you would never fight in self-defense. After all, if someone's going to die, who is to say he should die rather than you?


Ah, my apologies, my meaning wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the person might not understand the code (which is possible, but beside the point). I meant that the person might not understand the situation. If you think someone's coming to kill you, and they're really just reaching for a coin purse, I don't think you should take an alignment hit for that. You might still go to jail, but that's a different issue.

I should rewrite that to be more clear. I've also got a major reformat to the "Law" section coming too, which may change some significant points. *ponders*
Particularly if your aim is to resolve ambiguities in the Nine Alignment System, this is key. Your current array is filled with Relativist language that makes drawing even harder than under the original system - how can you distinguish between Good and Neutral if both make "good faith efforts" to be Good? How lazy, exactly, do you have to be to fall from Good to Neutral?

Personally, if I were going to go about revising this system, I'd ask myself this very question: what is one act that distinguishes between the differing categories. Under the Nine Alignment System, there's one for each Axis:

G/E: Behavior towards Innocents
- Good = Protect
- Evil = Kill
- Neutral = Neither Kill nor Protect

L/C: Attitude towards Authority
- Lawful = Reverent
- Chaotic = Irreverent
- Neutral = Neither reverent nor irreverent

Can you make a similar litmus test for your system? If not, you should think up one.

DabblerWizard
2009-12-29, 04:45 PM
I approve of your expanded alignment system, Sonofzeal.

I've never been terribly impressed with alignments in 3.5, and even less impressed with the 4.0 version.

I might have approved of the 3x alignment system if they had provided something similar to what you've been describing the past few days.

Semantically augmenting the old alignments, and expanding the system to accommodate new extremes, seem to be making an agreeable difference in how I understand and appreciate the alignment system.

The system is still disagreeable because it circumvents the more difficult (but informative) aspects of moral theory by focusing on the end-game labels attached to behavior. In other words, they ignore discussion about intentionality and outcome, and simply jump to "rightness" and "wrongness" in so many words. The Lawful-Chaotic axis is especially uninformative and prone to equivocal interpretations because of the differences between personal, community, and universal "rules".

There's no way WOTC is going to say: see J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism, Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, and Hurthouse's On Virtue Ethics, but I can dream. :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 04:59 PM
The system is still disagreeable because it circumvents the more difficult (but informative) aspects of moral theory by focusing on the end-game labels attached to behavior. In other words, they ignore discussion about intentionality and outcome, and simply jump to "rightness" and "wrongness" in so many words. The Lawful-Chaotic axis is especially uninformative and prone to equivocal interpretations because of the differences between personal, community, and universal "rules".
Sir, you sound like an educated man, but why are you confusing Subjective and Objective Alignment?


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Nowhere in this description does it rely on "following the rules" - it merely notes that Lawful types respect authority and honor traditions, while Chaotics disrespect authority ("resent being told what to do") and dishonor traditions ("favor new ideas over tradition").

Isn't that sufficient? A Lawful character will always give authority figures the respect their position demands and pay respect to local traditions - even if they do not bow to said authority or follow the traditions. There is a reason that the description does not say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, blindly obey authority, follow tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

How is this uninformative, vis-a-vis "the differences between personal, community, and universal rules?"

Likewise, I'm surprised that you wouldn't find having an objective moral system more demanding than a subjective system. Any clever person can justify their actions in a Subjective system, but in an Objective system you have to deal with the Letter of the Rules - which forces choices that one cannot equivocate around. Heck, I've seen more moral quandaries in D&D than in an alignment-less (but supposedly morality-based) system like oWoD Vampire.

DabblerWizard
2009-12-29, 06:30 PM
Sir, you sound like an educated man, but why are you confusing Subjective and Objective Alignment?

20 somethings should never be called sir. It makes them feel insecure about their age if they still want to feel young-ish. :smallredface:

I'm not familiar with subjective and objective alignment in gamer terms. Is it simply the difference between alignment as perceived and alignment as it actually is?



Nowhere in this description does it rely on "following the rules" - it merely notes that Lawful types respect authority and honor traditions, while Chaotics disrespect authority ("resent being told what to do") and dishonor traditions ("favor new ideas over tradition").

Isn't that sufficient? A Lawful character will always give authority figures the respect their position demands and pay respect to local traditions - even if they do not bow to said authority or follow the traditions. There is a reason that the description does not say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, blindly obey authority, follow tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Applying an ethical compass to a character involves more than checking whether they adhere to a few qualities.

I'm concerned with the system's inability to account for ethical nuance, because (1) it seems to ignore intent (and largely ignores talk about the intricacies involved with outcome), and (2) it simply depends upon a few short sentences referencing qualities, and expects these statements to be adequate explanations for moral theory.

Here's a classic example that suggests that outcome isn't sufficient to judge the rightness of a person's actions. A man decides to steal a woman's purse. He goes up to her, reaches for it, but suddenly pulls away when he seems a police officer come into view. Neither the woman nor the police officer are any wiser. No purse is stolen; no one is harmed.

Let's say that this man just sucks at stealing, but has tried to steal many times. Outcome would suggest that this man is "lawful", since he has never actually stolen from anyone, but it seems wrong to ignore his clearly unlawful intentions.

I'm not convinced that respect and honor are the key qualities necessary in a lawful person. Shouldn't this person uphold laws, let's say? But to what end? Even if the laws are malevolent? Even if the government is in anarchy and no new laws have come into place? - It's not clear where a person should become "chaotic" or "neutral" in this regard.



How is this uninformative, vis-a-vis "the differences between personal, community, and universal rules?"


Some philosophers and psychologists have suggested that universal laws may be more important to uphold than federal or state laws. (See: Kohlberg's moral stages) Would such a person be unlawful just because they ignore any local law that contradicts their sense for universal law? Maybe they should still be considered lawful. This is an ambiguous situation.



Likewise, I'm surprised that you wouldn't find having an objective moral system more demanding than a subjective system. Any clever person can justify their actions in a Subjective system, but in an Objective system you have to deal with the Letter of the Rules - which forces choices that one cannot equivocate around. Heck, I've seen more moral quandaries in D&D than in an alignment-less (but supposedly morality-based) system like oWoD Vampire.

See my response above concerning objective and subjective alignment systems.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 06:56 PM
I'm not familiar with subjective and objective alignment in gamer terms. Is it simply the difference between alignment as perceived and alignment as it actually is?
Ah, this is indeed the central problem.
An Objective Morality System is one where Morality (what is "Good" and "Evil") is defined in absolute terms ("killing innocents is Evil; protecting innocents is Good"). A Subjective Morality System is one where "Good" and "Evil" is defined in relative terms ("killing is Good or Evil depending on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual"). IRL we usually deal with Subjective morality - philosophers like Kant no longer represent the mainstream here; ethical decisions are rarely resolved against a universal moral framework.

In D&D, Good and Evil have Objective meanings:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
If you "debase or destroy innocent life," regardless of intent, you are doing an Evil act. Even if you believe that the orphans you are murdering are actually demons, the act is still Evil. Likewise, if you do not protect innocent life, you cannot be Good - the nice guy down the street who stands mute while the orphans get murdered is not Good; even if he couldn't stop the murderer he should have attempted to protect them to the best extent he could.

This is the core of Good and Evil. There are additional words describing secondary traits of Good and Evil people, but they are phrased in more permissive language ("implies"). Regardless of what you think "Good and Evil" mean, this is the definition; the system is Objective.

Likewise, Law and Chaos have Objective meanings:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Note that there is no reference to the supremacy or hierarchy of laws - what matters is your general attitude towards truth, honor, authority, and tradition. Multiple lawful characters can argue about what law should be followed at any given time, but all of them agree that some law, based in tradition or other authority, should be followed. Nor do they reject authority or tradition out of hand - they respect them.
So, as you can see, Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention. Each term means exactly what it says - no more, no less.

For a full text of the Alignment system, click here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)

EDIT:
Regarding your thought experiment.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
It is a fallacy to equate alignment with outcome - alignment is not a sum of outcomes, but a roadmap used to guide decision making. In play, it often appears to be a sum of outcomes because it is impossible to read a player's mind - the DM can only judge by actions, and may adjust alignment along the principle of Revealed Preference. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference)

In essence, a PC whose sheet reads "Lawful Good" but continually flouts authority and follows no rules but his own is not, and never was "Lawful Good" - his "general morals and personal attitudes" are, and always have been, Chaotic. The DM then steps in to correct a labeling error.

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 08:00 PM
This is always a troubling response to hear when discussing an objective alignment system. What good is it to call something objective if "YMMV" is the standard response?

This is why I always argue from text - it's the only way you can argue when discussing objective topics. For example, your point of variable valuations of life has no bearing on Good/Evil; there's not a scrap of text to support this as a valid criteria for aligning someone on the Good/Evil axis. At best, you can argue someone that values their own lives over the lives of others is Evil - but even there, only at an extreme point. Furthermore, since everyone places different values on life in D&D, it's hard to use proof of relative values as any sort of argument regarding alignment.

Case in point: if you held all lives to be equal, you would never fight in self-defense. After all, if someone's going to die, who is to say he should die rather than you?
Of course you have to argue from the text when possible. However, I would disagree that the text is as clear as you seem to think it is. Certainly the things you quote from it are there, but they're right beside other things that might suggest different answers.

Take, for example, law. "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." You seem to read that so only the third point actually matters (which, by the way, is another entirely valid solution to the issue, and does solve the problem if you get others to accept that too). Someone else might focus exclusively on the first two. Someone else might think the fifth was key.


This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136568) is an excellent example of the confusion people have. It's okay for you to say that you understand it perfectly and everyone else is wrong, but when that many people disagree, the system is flawed, fullstop. Either it contradicts itself, or doesn't provide enough clarification, or both.




Particularly if your aim is to resolve ambiguities in the Nine Alignment System, this is key. Your current array is filled with Relativist language that makes drawing even harder than under the original system - how can you distinguish between Good and Neutral if both make "good faith efforts" to be Good? How lazy, exactly, do you have to be to fall from Good to Neutral?

Personally, if I were going to go about revising this system, I'd ask myself this very question: what is one act that distinguishes between the differing categories. Under the Nine Alignment System, there's one for each Axis:

G/E: Behavior towards Innocents
- Good = Protect
- Evil = Kill
- Neutral = Neither Kill nor Protect

L/C: Attitude towards Authority
- Lawful = Reverent
- Chaotic = Irreverent
- Neutral = Neither reverent nor irreverent

Can you make a similar litmus test for your system? If not, you should think up one.

Again, you're doing selective reading from the text if you want to break it down that. However..

Exalted = follows Conscience absolutely
Good = follows Conscience decently
Neutral = follows Conscience weakly
Evil = doesn't follow Conscience at all
Vile = works against Conscience

("Conscience" is, of course, a short form for "the universal objective ethical system by which goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world". I thought the former was a bit snappier.)

Law/Chaos have their own defined test already, which is currently under revision. It should be fixed up at some point today. It's not nearly as simple as yours, but also tries to express a bit more closely how the term often actually gets used.




Oh, and text on objective/subjective has been cleaned up to make it a bit clearer in the Exalted example. Thanks for pointing that out!

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 08:45 PM
It's not that the language is irrelevant - it's that it's less relevant in this case. Words have meanings.

Respect - deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

Honor: to hold in honor or high respect
This is not the same as an imperative (a command) such as "tell the truth" or "keep their word.

I fear I am becoming shrill on this point, but I thought I'd make one last effort for clarity. It does not take any special ability to discern the alignment of any character under the Nine Alignment System - you merely have to read the alignment descriptions (essential in an Objective Moral System) and then gather enough information.

Analysis of the linked thread:

He's a talented warrior who travels the world to seek and combat the forces of evil. If one were to ask him, that would literally be his stated goal- "To fight the forces of evil."

He doesn't do this out of any moral or ethical obligation, nor does he really expect to be able to be successful in much of anything more than a temporary, localized scale- his stated goal is simply too vast to be accomplished by a single person (unless that person's an epic level caster, but that's not the point.)

He doesn't do it to "make the world a better place" either. It's actually mostly an excuse to travel and look for new challenges. He doesn't try to dominate the landscape or murder everyone or rob the countryside blind because there's no challenege in it. At least, not enough to make it worth the hassle. Plus, people tend to like heroes better than they like villians anyway.

Not that he's completely altruistic, either. He doesn't like to exploit people, but he won't trek halfway accross the country to pass out blankets to people in the middle of a blizzard either. He'll rescue a village being threatened by bandits because it'll probably involve a fight, but any reward aside from an opportunity to find more people to fight is pretty much secondary, unless he's in need of money for traveling or a new sword or something. Most of the time he'd just ask for people to spread his name and send any more such jobs his way. If he fails and the entire town is slaughtered by bandits, he'd look for and help any survivors, but i wouldn't weight too heavily on is conscience. He'd be frustrated with himself for being unable to meet a challenge, but the loss of life wouldn't weigh heavily on his mind. The world's a dangerous place, and the possibility of dying violently is just another facet of life that happens every day.

He doesn't enjoy murdering people- he beleives in the warrior's code and won't strike down someone who's defenseless (unless he or an ally put them in that state during a fight) or unwilling to defend themselves, and he'll accept an enemy's surrender (unless it's the second time they've surrendered, after the first being a trick to get him to let his guard down.)

Possibly Lawful, certainly Neutral.

Why?
(1) Is his aim to protect innocents? No - his aim is to garner fame and fortune; if there's no glory in it, he won't do it. NOT GOOD.
(2) Does he kill innocents? No - it's part of his warrior code not to strike the defenseless. NOT EVIL.

If NOT GOOD and NOT EVIL, then NEUTRAL

There is insufficient information regarding his L/C Axis. He has a strict code, so that means he doesn't just "do what he promises to do if he feels like it" - presumably. Without any further information, I'd just say Neutral, since he doesn't seem to have any particular respect for established authority or laws - he just does it because it's the easiest thing to do.

The relevant text:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect or authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
So far I haven't actually seen you respond directly to any of my alignment analysis - at least not by referring to the text. I strongly suspect that you actually want to use a subjective alignment system but, for some reason, you like the veneer of the objective alignment system.

I further suspect the reason why is that you like having Holy and Unholy forces - to that end I suggest scrapping the alignment system entirely for your games (at least as a mechanical effect) and instead substituting the following:

- Outsiders are all either Holy or Unholy.
They can also be Lawful or Chaotic if you want to keep this element in your game.

- Mortals can be consecrated to possess one of these auras. Otherwise, mortals count, for all intents and purposes, as Neutral.
This allows people to consciously align themselves with a particular ethos; no more worrying about partial modifiers for the mooks who wander the world. Nor do you worry about pickpockets identifying as Evil or whatnot.

All in all, I think this will be less invasive than the half strength / full strength system you have going now, while still achieving the same ends.

DabblerWizard
2009-12-29, 10:22 PM
An Objective Morality System is one where Morality (what is "Good" and "Evil") is defined in absolute terms ("killing innocents is Evil; protecting innocents is Good").

A Subjective Morality System is one where "Good" and "Evil" is defined in relative terms ("killing is Good or Evil depending on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual").

So, as you can see, Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention. Each term means exactly what it says - no more, no less.

It is a fallacy to equate alignment with outcome - alignment is not a sum of outcomes, but a roadmap used to guide decision making. In play, it often appears to be a sum of outcomes because it is impossible to read a player's mind



A quick forward not relating to the main topic of this post: Kant was nothing if not an absolutist. Link is spoilered. http://www.socialpc.com/Philosophy/Absolutism-And-Relativism.html

Assuming I agree with your assertion that D&D uses an objective moral system, then it is definitely the case that I don't care for the system.

I'm not particularly fond of ethical pluralism, where there are multiple correct answers to any given scenario, even juxtaposed positions. However, there is something to be said in favor of the open mindedness that subjective-leaning models possess, that seems to be lost in absolutely objective moral models.

On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to view the alignment system as absolutist. Perhaps you might view this as superfluous or cursory in its application, but I don't mind shaping the system into something a bit more malleable.

You suggested above that "Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention". This suggests to me that the alignment system isn't worthy of being considered a moral system at all.

Throwing together a few terms with rigid definitions (assuming I agree with your interpretation in that regard) in hopes that it will simplify categorization, is a pathetic attempt on the part of developers, to construct a system that can judge the behavior of PCs and NPCs alike.

Alignment then, is a faulty road map, if it even still deserves the term. It doesn't judge behavior. It presents a highly simplified list of terms and definitions that are supposed to cover all moral outcomes, which doesn't happen. And sadly, people do use it to assess moral behavior, because it's all they have through the game.

[Edit]

I'm not especially happy with my response to your comments, but I don't see the point of turning a forum into an essay contest.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-29, 10:43 PM
Assuming I agree with your assertion that D&D uses an objective moral system, then it is definitely the case that I don't care for the system.
This fact, at least, is not seriously disputed. It is impossible to run a game in which you can Smite Evil, but Evil is a Relative term; you either have a game where nobody is Evil (because who defines themselves as Evil?) or where everyone is Evil (because who would define their enemies as Good?). Also, I think the descriptions, with their simple, concrete boundaries, are best construed as objectively defined.

The Role of Alignment
I also think you miss the point of Alignment - it is not a way to live one's life; it is a mechanic for a game, to model the classic Good vs. Evil conflicts you see in Heroic Fantasy since time immemorial. The Nine Alignments System is certainly not designed to be widely applied (and, I think, it would be a poor idea to do so), nor is it a proscriptive system (e.g. it doesn't tell you how to play). Rather, it is a descriptive system - you get to decide how you want to play, and then pick an Alignment that covers you. Some classes have Alignment restrictions; this is just a shorthand for the sort of behavior that is expected from members of that class.

Alignment & Moral Crises
Now, why did I say Alignment has no bearing on the moral crises you seek to address? Because it is not a system that mandates any one personal moral framework; in fact it gives you nine choices. Between, and even within, those choices you can end up with the sort of moral dilemma that you described - as I mentioned, Lawfuls can disagree over what source of authority should govern in a certain situation.

A LG Paladin may advocate the enlightened chivalric code that he lives by, while a LN Wizard may dismiss that code as idealistic and unworkable - choosing instead a more secular code grounded in efficiency. Finally, the LE Aristocrat may point out that while both systems have their benefits, they should take care to keep a check on their underlings - keep the masses under control, so to speak. While the LG and LE characters will likely never find common ground, the LN person could go either way - or he could stick to his guns and drag the other two to the bargaining table for a compromise.

This example comes out of policy, but the same argument can be had over prisoners (the LG wants the murderer tried and, if found guilty, executed - the CG says they have enough evidence and should kill him here), deals with the devil (the LN finds the terms distasteful, but adequate; the CE refuses to bind himself to anyone, God or man) and the like. Heck, two LG can come to blows over whether Law or Good should rule their reasoning.
You may find such a system distasteful - fine, this is why Kant is not popular (N.B. I had attempted to use him as an example of objective morality). However, Zeal's system is either objective (which, on closer analysis, I doubt) - in which case it has the same failings as the Nine Alignment System - or it is subjective. If it is subjective, then it should own up to it - after all, can you ever claim someone has suffered an alignment shift because they "don't follow their conscience enough?" For me, trying to adjudicate that is ten times worse than telling the Paladin who just chopped up a baby that he's Fallen :smalltongue:

DabblerWizard
2009-12-30, 12:11 PM
It is impossible to run a game in which you can Smite Evil, but Evil is a Relative term; you either have a game where nobody is Evil (because who defines themselves as Evil?) or where everyone is Evil (because who would define their enemies as Good?).


Tales of Wyre http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre-06-12-09-update.html is an amazing campaign journal posted on enworld. Much of the story circles around a paladin that has to contend with his deity's decision to completely overhaul their entire religious / moral code, with the paladin as its new paragon. The story uses the D&D 3x system, and yet functions well despite being set in a morally gray world.

Following this story as a guide, along with trusting in my own creativity and logic, I think it's entirely possible to play out a system where good and evil are relative terms. I would agree that it might be challenging, but certainly worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 01:07 PM
Kant wasn't the only philosopher to have a concept of absolute morality- some others do- even ones who were absolutely opposed to Kant in most respects, such as Rand.

The claim that "subjectivist morality is the mainstream" may be perhaps an overstatement.

On the other hand, one might say "context matters, even in an absolutist morality"

For example, on the use of force- whether it's justified or not can depend on who started it, whether it is being used defensively or offensively, and so on.

sonofzeal
2009-12-30, 03:26 PM
This is not the place to debate real-world philosophy. That has a high probability of getting the thread locked. Please take that conversation elsewhere.



This is not the place to debate objectivist vs subjectivist ethics. This system has a stated assumption of objectivist, whether or not the real world works that way, and whether or not Oracle_Hunter thinks that's the way it works. See my quote on this page:


("Conscience" is, of course, a short form for "the universal objective ethical system by which goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world". I thought the former was a bit snappier.)

If the debate continues, it's going to involve more or more real-world philosophy. That has a high probability of getting the thread locked. Please take that conversation elsewhere.




I've found and fixed a few points in the main posts where I seemed to be using subjectivist language. You guys could help by pointing out any I've missed.

I'd also very much like thoughts on whether degree of rationality would make a suitable second facet of Law; it seems to me that lawful creatures (Inevitables, Devils, Formians, Monks) are almost inherently more reason-oriented and less emotion-oriented than chaotic creatures (Slaad, Demons, Orcs, Barbarians). It generally adheres to many people's colloquial use of the term "lawful" as a rough category (ie, one not argued directly from the text). And it also captures what I was trying to go for in the original; those with strong intellectual beliefs will generally behave logically in accordance with them, while those without that stark internal standard will respond more to the ebb and flow of emotions. Now, given that I am changing the official definition in my system (it's my variant, after all), could this make a superior category to the one that's already there and crossed out? And what should the category be referred to as?

JonestheSpy
2009-12-30, 07:12 PM
Interestingly, it seems that Gary Gygax had the same line of thought as sonofzeal way back in 1st Edition Ad&D when he invented the Outer Planes. We had the nine planes corresponding to the actual alignments, then eight more for all the between types who don't fit exactly into the extreme categories - Pandemonium, Gehenna, etc. And those planes lasted up til 3.5 - I have no idea how the planes work in 4E now that they totally booped up alignments.

What the planes are missing that SoZ has are places for all those folks who gravitate toward True Neutral - something between Limbo an the Outlands for the neutral-leaning-chaotic types, for instance. I suppose in Planescape terms that would be the areas of the Outlands that border the other Outer Planes.

BTW, I second the motion that paladins should be pretty extreme in their alignments, not just the "pretty much" rank.

sonofzeal
2009-12-30, 07:41 PM
Interestingly, it seems that Gary Gygax had the same line of thought as sonofzeal way back in 1st Edition Ad&D when he invented the Outer Planes. We had the nine planes corresponding to the actual alignments, then eight more for all the between types who don't fit exactly into the extreme categories - Pandemonium, Gehenna, etc. And those planes lasted up til 3.5 - I have no idea how the planes work in 4E now that they totally booped up alignments.

What the planes are missing that SoZ has are places for all those folks who gravitate toward True Neutral - something between Limbo an the Outlands for the neutral-leaning-chaotic types, for instance. I suppose in Planescape terms that would be the areas of the Outlands that border the other Outer Planes.
Interesting! I've rarely played any game before 3.5, and I'm not at all familiar with the previous cosmologies or how they've changed, so thank you for that!



BTW, I second the motion that paladins should be pretty extreme in their alignments, not just the "pretty much" rank.
That would make a quite viable houserule. You could also make them choose one of: AxEx, AxG, or LEx (heh, that was a fun show if not exactly a great one), possibly contingent on whether the paladin follows Heironeous, St Cuthbert, or Pelor.

AxEx would be your "idealized" paladin, AxG would be your stick-up-the-butt sort, and LEx would be more willing to temper justice with mercy (within the binds of the oath, of course). LG would be more like, say, Roy - a generally good and trustworthy person, who could end up taking the oaths but would probably chafe under them.


Of course, I'm in favour of reduced alignment restrictions whenever possible, that's the only reason I'm hesitant to make it an "official" part of my system. Worth keeping in mind, but up to the DM.

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 07:44 PM
While I might not agree on how chaos and law are defined (last I looked there was a note that it was being changed so until it is I can't agree), the idea of a next stage of alignment is sound. I have never felt the need for one, I would mark my character as CG with CN tendencies, or extremely LG, or even NG (exalted), to the DM. On the character sheet, and game mechanically, he was CG, or LG, or NG because I never saw a game mechanic need for more than that. I do say that if people feel the need to differentiate between Exalted and Good game mechanically or that they need to put down Exalted to differentiate themselves from the guy that barely makes the cut that's okay, this system should help this. I grew up with B/E/C/M/I and then 2e splatbooks I read obsessively and amongst those was planescape which had a gradient alignment and you could see the shades.

I would say if you are going to make "Extremes" and "barely" categories there should be 49 total. Exalted, Good, and something that would need a name but between Good and Neutral. Same thing for Evil, and the others.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-30, 07:51 PM
Tales of Wyre http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre-06-12-09-update.html is an amazing campaign journal posted on enworld. Much of the story circles around a paladin that has to contend with his deity's decision to completely overhaul their entire religious / moral code, with the paladin as its new paragon. The story uses the D&D 3x system, and yet functions well despite being set in a morally gray world.

Following this story as a guide, along with trusting in my own creativity and logic, I think it's entirely possible to play out a system where good and evil are relative terms. I would agree that it might be challenging, but certainly worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.
The real problem is mechanical, not roleplay related. You can run worlds where everyone is some variety of Neutral (see Eberron) while having an Objective morality system. However, if you allow people to define Good/Evil for themselves (also: Law/Chaos) then any spell that targets Good or Evil becomes problematic - the real question is what kind of problems it produces.

If individuals determine their alignment, then nobody detects as Evil - for who believes they are really "the bad guys?"

If individuals determine everyone else's alignment, then every enemy detects as Evil - because who wants to consider themselves "the bad guys."

sonofzeal
2009-12-30, 07:52 PM
While I might not agree on how chaos and law are defined (last I looked there was a note that it was being changed so until it is I can't agree), the idea of a next stage of alignment is sound. I have never felt the need for one, I would mark my character as CG with CN tendencies, or extremely LG, or even NG (exalted), to the DM. On the character sheet, and game mechanically, he was CG, or LG, or NG because I never saw a game mechanic need for more than that. I do say that if people feel the need to differentiate between Exalted and Good game mechanically or that they need to put down Exalted to differentiate themselves from the guy that barely makes the cut that's okay, this system should help this. I grew up with B/E/C/M/I and then 2e splatbooks I read obsessively and amongst those was planescape which had a gradient alignment and you could see the shades.

I would say if you are going to make "Extremes" and "barely" categories there should be 49 total. Exalted, Good, and something that would need a name but between Good and Neutral. Same thing for Evil, and the others.
I would love your take on Law/Chaos. Oracle_Hunter reduces it purely to "respect for authority", but I think it's a bit more complicated than that, as Elan shows huge respect for authority and is still pretty solidly chaotic (imo at least).

Currently, I'm thinking of revising the crossed-out category to something about how the character makes decisions, whether through reason or through emotion. Official creatures seem to show a strong tendency in this direction, and it fits my personal mental image. What do you think? Is there anything that might fit better there? If you like it, I'm completely stuck for a name for the category that doesn't (strongly) imply it's a good or bad thing, could you suggest one?




As for 49 alignments, I don't think there's any accepted in-game terms I could steal from. All the ones I used were from weapon properties and should be recognizable to anyone familiar with the game, but any further expansions wouldn't be so lucky. I also think you'd have difficulty defining things to that level of gradient. I'm happy with my 25.


(edit) Oracle_Hunter, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm prioritizing my efforts on this subject right now. If there's anything in particular you've said that you feel needs responding to, let me know.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-12-30, 08:15 PM
(edit) Oracle_Hunter, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm prioritizing my efforts on this subject right now. If there's anything in particular you've said that you feel needs responding to, let me know.
Ho, no worries here! :smallbiggrin:

I know I had taken what is essentially a PEACH thread off-topic and, as I mentioned, I had feared I was getting a bit shrill about Alignment (it being one of my hobby horses). If there's anything I'd like to hear a response on, it'd be "where are the lines between your alignments." Your sketch leaves a lot of unanswered questions:

Exalted = follows Conscience absolutely
Good = follows Conscience decently
Neutral = follows Conscience weakly
Evil = doesn't follow Conscience at all
Vile = works against Conscience
(1) How "absolutely" is absolutely? From the look of things, a mistaken Exalted cannot commit non-Exalted Acts - he can murder anyone he wants if he can claim "I thought he was going to kill me." Under the Nine Alignment System, a mistaken Evil act is still Evil, and recklessness is punished as a result. Here, ignorant Exalted characters are better off than thinking ones - they can do whatever is expedient as long as they don't ask too many questions.

(2) What is the line between "decently" and "weakly." Is someone who is Good 5 days a week "Good?" How about only on the weekends? Unlike the Nine Alignment System, you use a fuzzy term to distinguish Good and Neutral - you'll need to define them, or you're vaguer than the Nine Alignments System.

(3) Does a man who kills when convenient for his ends, but donates 10% of his blood money to an orphanage "Neutral" or "Evil." After all, he does something in line with Conscience - and is this the result you'd want to have?
I've been putting off discussing your "emotion/reason" system because I haven't taken the time to read it thoroughly. However, I would like to see why you think Elan defers to authority - at most he refuses to steal because he doesn't want to hurt shopkeepers, and listens to Roy because he sees Roy as an idol; he certainly has little respect for Hinjo or any other potential "authority" in the comic.

I will be spoilering comments about OotS so as not to clutter your thread, of course :smallwink:

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 08:33 PM
Reason versus emotion seems an interesting take, and more usable than the strong code that was bandied about. I mostly posted my view on the argument in a different thread earlier, much of it a rant, and mostly I objected to the idea that a strong code = lawful. Even consistency =/= lawful (as both Robin Hood [CG] and the Joker [CE] are consistent). I would say inconsistency is a chaotic act though, and enforced routine is a lawful act (this is beyond just having a consistent modus operandi). If your character consistently tries to undermine authority he is chaotic. If he consistently tries to support authority he is lawful. But that's one factor. If your character believes his code must apply to others he's lawful, should is neutral, and should be his and his alone is chaotic. If he cares about society and believes it is a source of good (assuming something good here since I rarely mess with LN, TN, CN but just skip to evil, my players don't care about the neutral shopkeep, but the evil shopkeep cheating his customers they care about) thats another thing for law, if he believes each man should stand alone that's chaotic. And I would agree reason is typically lawful while emotion is typically chaotic.

In real life I define myself as lawful. I do not chafe beneath my pattern (Neutral), I like being around people and having company and actively crave/seek it (lawful), I have a strong code of honor (neutral) that supports decries all sorts of deceit (I like to think good), I do not believe it should be applied to others (chaotic), but believe that it must be adhered to exactly and do use it as a lens to judge myself and others even when I do not want to (lawful), I prefer to work as a team (lawful rather included with being around people), I will openly criticize authority (chaotic), but respect certain authority figures from the pass (lawful) and in fact get many of my criticisms from them (lawful), I try and control my emotions and use reason to the point where my friends are telling me I repress them too much (lawful), I have a very strong respect for tradition following it when normal and feel guilty for jay-walking (lawful). I used myself because it's the only example I know of that is fully fleshed out.

For Robin Hood: He chafes beneath authority (Chaotic), forms a group of likeminded individuals (lawful) but often leaves with minimal or no notice (chaotic), ultimately prefers single or small group actions (chaotic), has a strong code (neutral), rebels against what he sees as unrighteous authority (chaotic), respects individuals for their actions and not status (chaotic), does respect tradition but not when it is hurting other's wellfare (neutral good), has no qualms about breaking the law if it is not also breaking his code (shot the king's deer he did) (chaotic), has been known to follow reason or emotions (neutral).

For Optimus Prime: Believes strongly that the group is stronger than it's pieces (lawful), believes in group action (lawful), respects legitimate authority even when detrimental (lawful), has a strong code (neutral), respects traditions of his own people and others (lawful), normally chooses the rational response but can follow emotions (lawful).

The problem I can see with ration v emotion is that even CE demon lords follow ration as do slaad lords so that might also be a function of a high Int score which will blur things. Despite that it is still useful in determining alignments and the best suggestion I've heard not drawn from (some edition's) Core books.

sonofzeal
2009-12-31, 02:03 AM
(1) How "absolutely" is absolutely? From the look of things, a mistaken Exalted cannot commit non-Exalted Acts - he can murder anyone he wants if he can claim "I thought he was going to kill me." Under the Nine Alignment System, a mistaken Evil act is still Evil, and recklessness is punished as a result. Here, ignorant Exalted characters are better off than thinking ones - they can do whatever is expedient as long as they don't ask too many questions.
I wouldn't call a mistake Evil, although you're right that's a fine line. The problem is that it becomes crazy-easy for Paladins to fall if just being mistaken is enough. Let's say the Forces of Evil(tm) kidnap his best friend, the pure-hearted Bobby, and cast an illusion to make him look like a powerful devil. Mr Paladin charges in, strikes for the demon - and then there's his friend dead and him without his paladin powers as the real demons close.

Arbitrary examples aside, if mistaken Evil is still Evil, then a simple bluff check is enough. I'm not comfortable with that in my games. I wouldn't ever make a Paladin fall, or a PC take an alignment hit, over something their character didn't know. Negligence and willful ignorance are a bit different and may cause issue, but a mistake, not so much.


(2) What is the line between "decently" and "weakly." Is someone who is Good 5 days a week "Good?" How about only on the weekends? Unlike the Nine Alignment System, you use a fuzzy term to distinguish Good and Neutral - you'll need to define them, or you're vaguer than the Nine Alignments System.
...I typed out a big thing here, before realizing I was just re-wording the two paragraphs from my initial series of posts on the subject. They go into a good level of detail, and should be fairly clear. If you've read those and they don't answer your question, feel free to let me know.


(3) Does a man who kills when convenient for his ends, but donates 10% of his blood money to an orphanage "Neutral" or "Evil." After all, he does something in line with Conscience - and is this the result you'd want to have?
Well, we're working on a really limited picture here. If we're talking real world, almost certainly Evil; in cinematic fiction, he's probably someone on a mission (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheQuest), and is willing to break the rules (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans), but is secretly a good person inside (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JerkWithAHeartOfGold).


I've been putting off discussing your "emotion/reason" system because I haven't taken the time to read it thoroughly. However, I would like to see why you think Elan defers to authority - at most he refuses to steal because he doesn't want to hurt shopkeepers, and listens to Roy because he sees Roy as an idol; he certainly has little respect for Hinjo or any other potential "authority" in the comic.

I will be spoilering comments about OotS so as not to clutter your thread, of course :smallwink:
Elan:
If you read Origin of PCs, Elan becomes ecstatic when Roy, a man who Elan just met that day, wants him for his team. Elan has a strong desire to be accepted, and seems to love following a decent leader. His easily-distracted and hyperactive nature aside, Elan really does seem to look for approval from Roy. I mean, take his first real speaking role (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0002.html). It's not because Roy is something magical and special to Elan (poor choice of words I know since everything is magical and special to Elan; you know what I mean). Roy is just an authority to Elan, but he might be the only authority figure that hasn't abandoned him (See "Origin of PCs"). Either way, I believe Elan is a born follower.


And you haven't read emotion/reason because it hasn't been fully written-up yet. Basically though, I'm trying to reduce the umpteen different facets of lawfulness (and Zaydos spells out most of them; thank there, Zaydos!) into three equally-weighted ones. Respect for Authority is definitely one. Consistency (which I might adjust to include "truthfulness") is another. I'm not happy with the third though, and I think I like something about how logical-vs-emotional they are in their decision-making. Anything alternatives that appeal to you?

Zaydos
2010-01-01, 12:30 AM
Okay, fourth times the charm (I've tried this thrice and didn't finish err being booted off the computer), but here is my character I've been working on. I will present his rp factors and I will let you tell me what his alignment would be. I will do the minimum amount as possible on the good/evil axis, as it is the law/chaos which is more interesting (good/evil is pretty clear cut). I know what I think he is with fair certainty in the normal system, but am interested in what he'd be in this one.

Thomas Adrian Zayl, a.k.a. "Laughing Tom"
Thomas is a human. He left home when 10, chosen by a mage to be his apprentice. He had already begun to teach himself from his father's old grimoires (his father had been missing since he was about 4) and this skewed approach led to him lacking the fundamentals of evocation. While apprenticed he found out that despite his teacher's penchant for the necrotic arts he had no talent there, and a dislike for the mindraping magics of enchantment (he's a focused specialist conjurer). When he was 12 he killed his master in his sleep to prevent his plans to use an undead army to conquer the town, and returned to his town just long enough to say good-buy and gather his father's old things.

He left home, theoretically to find his dad although ultimately learning about magic and seeing the world were more pressing causes, as well as recovering from the physical and psychological abuse of the last two years. He traveled west to the "Wall" and passing through entered the "Human Empire" a land where magic didn't function except in places where mana was concentrated. He protected a town from attacking poison dusk lizardfolk, by talking to the confused beasts When the wild magic that brought them here reactivated it took Tom as well. He ended up in a place from the tales when he sat upon his father's knee. The Land of Magic. This took probably 2~3 years.

In transit he looked upon the face of reality and he laughed. He's been changed ever since (not sure exactly what he was like before so not going into detail of his change). He did have a fever dream for a while, and when free of it had a new "imaginary friend" (his pixie improved familiar).

While here he traveled for a time and stayed with the Tael elves a decadent race of elves. He left hearing of the Walls collapsing, the world crumbling, masked horrors called Akuma wandering the lands. So he returned to check on his sister and mom. The trek took some time (leveled him to get teleport too) and on the way he met his fellow apprentice Elruul Dakran (as enemies, he pulled the quick draw, used Evard's Black, grabbed the loot and left; they met up at the inn afterwards and Tom bought drinks). On the way he was detoured by helping Asylia Vivex a girl (about 16) who had been taken in and raised/abused by the cult of the god of destruction into being their weapon. Helping her break free they traveled together for a time, becoming lovers, but when he heard that Rai-no-Akuma (the devil of thunder) had taken over his home she stayed behind to finish off the cult of the god of destruction and let him go to try and save his home.

Arriving at his home he ambushed the hobgoblin army as it was on parade and then chased them back to the barracks. Using his pixie familiar's permanent image to "give himself up" when they threatened hostages he never once turned to others for help or an organized resistance. The hobgoblins routed he prepared to set forth to finish of Rai-no-Akuma and then hunt down the other Akuma to make the world safe for his little sister.

Now that backstory has been summarized (and yes that's an abridged version) for personality.

He is capable of reason and logical thought, he's a wizard after all. He usually follows the emotional response without stopping to think things out first. He is a wizard and therefore capable of adapting his very abilities on a daily basis but has a set pattern of spells to prepare in a default situation (cause I as a player am lazy).

He dislikes rules applied to him, but doesn't care about them in general. If you want to follow a set of rules that's your business, just don't tell him he has to too. If you force him to, whether by threat or sheer arms, he will resent it and look for ways within the system to undermine it (it's fun) and then move on to outright rebellion if he can get away with it. Even so left to his on devices he won't break laws for the fun of it, he just won't recognize their existence.

As a whole he prefers solo action, although he can tolerate, and even respect or initiate, small group action. He will not try to uphold a leader, or put a leader over himself. He may assume the position of leader without noticing or realizing it, though especially in battle (he is a tactician and last time I played d20 modern I ended up having to coordinate the battle OOC, which worked IC because I was the Charismatic Hero).

His familiar is the physical embodiment of his own madness distilled and given physical form (if he went Mystic Theurge it would also be his deity). It is a practical joker that will go to lengths to disturb others (it will flirt with everyone in the party till they actually get annoyed at it, include the worg familiar and the tiger animal companion... which might be the funniest since it will take it a while for the pixie to realize the tiger can't understand it). Tom will eventually rein it in, but only after having fun watching and if he really wanted it to it would stop completely. The pixie will try to avoid causing actual damage, although the psychological harm it causes to peasants may be immense.

He is quite eager to show off, appearing in Greater Luminous Armor and shouting forth "Behold for I shine with the glory which is Tom!" He uses Evard's Black Tentacles and Khaltim's Fiery Tentacles because he likes the spell (even with +1d6 CL averages around <50% against CR -1 enemies in the Monster Manual). He also prepares several 1 target blasting spells (Orbs/Lesser Orbs, Elemental Darts from Dragonlance, and a homebrew swift action conjuration ray that deals 3d6 damage) cause it's fun to blast stuff. Other than this he has mainly defensive spells, some CC (grease, glitterdust), teleport, fly, slow (because I don't want him to show off too much and that's subtle and effective, where Steel Dance is less effective but just moves in on other's turf although more in character). He likes the limelight, and to showoff. He wields the power of the cosmos and he knows it.

He gets his name for his tendency to laugh, a nice warm chuckle. The fact that this laugh is normally while killing things with giant tentacles and/or fire is what makes it disturbing (he also has Perform [Dance] so he's dancing all the while). He sees life as a joke, and honestly expects to adventure till he dies. He'll help people because he believes that's right even if the cosmos is a soulless mockery made by a crazed mage tearing up a true reality, and now merely a show for the true gods.

Can't think of anything more off the top of my head. He'll develop more once I've played him.

Volkov
2010-01-01, 09:16 AM
So I'm guessing the yugoloths are neutral vile. The demons and devils remain chaotic and lawful evil. The inhabitants of mechanus are axiomatic neutral. The slaads are anarchic good/neutral/lawful. And so on.

sonofzeal
2010-01-24, 10:05 PM
Law/Chaos now changed, with examples for each category! The new:


"Rationality" is about how balance reason and emotions. Someone strongly in this category follows their mind instead of their heart, will usually act in a thoughtful manner to further their goals (which may be selfish or selfless), and prefers to have a well-thought-out and logical plan. Someone strongly outside this category goes with their gut, will usually act in whatever way feels best in the moment, and doesn't care much for planning. Note that this has little to do with intelligence, as often times the spontaneous approach requires quicker thinking and more creativity to pull off. Also note that reason can be mislead as easily as emotions.

A Lawful commander may weigh a captured soldier's life against the risk of rescue, while a Chaotic commander may refuse to leave a teammate behind. A Lawful assassin might meticulously plan a mission, while a Chaotic assassin might go with whatever opportunity presents itself. A Lawful adventurer might tabulate the value of all loot obtained, while a Chaotic adventurer would care more about how impressive each item is, rather than its worth.


The old!


"Strong Convictions" is about how strongly you believe in what you believe in (whatever that is). Someone strongly in this category believes without question, expects others to do the same, and makes their beliefs a big part of their life. Someone strongly outside this category may not have any particular beliefs at all, or may be very lackadaisical about them. Ironically, this may mean that those most firmly entrenched against the government and order also share some lawful traits themselves. Individual DMs may decide for themselves whether these are an exception, or merely an amusing quirk of the system.

......thoughts or feedback? Is it an improvement? Does it overlap too much with the other categories? Is it useful as a metric?

sonofzeal
2010-01-24, 10:24 PM
Okay, fourth times the charm (I've tried this thrice and didn't finish err being booted off the computer), but here is my character I've been working on. I will present his rp factors and I will let you tell me what his alignment would be. I will do the minimum amount as possible on the good/evil axis, as it is the law/chaos which is more interesting (good/evil is pretty clear cut). I know what I think he is with fair certainty in the normal system, but am interested in what he'd be in this one.

Thomas Adrian Zayl, a.k.a. "Laughing Tom"
I've had a bit of a long day, but it definitely looks like he's more on the Chaotic end.


Respect for Authority - low. He doesn't seem to have an antipathy towards it, but that's not necessary. He just doesn't pay it much attention.

Rationality - low. He's intelligent, but follows his emotions rather than logic.

Consistency - ....I'm guessing low, from what I've read.


Conclusion: Depending on how the "consistency" thing goes, he could actually be Anarchic. Fun!


So I'm guessing the yugoloths are neutral vile. The demons and devils remain chaotic and lawful evil. The inhabitants of mechanus are axiomatic neutral. The slaads are anarchic good/neutral/lawful. And so on.
Depends on the campaign, which is why I mention the possibility but leave it optional. In one I'm in, Devils are "Lawful Vile", dedicated to the corruption of souls, while Yugoloths are "Neutral Evil" and mostly just in it for the gold. Demons are almost certainly Vile in most campaign settings, though I have a feeling that Eberron demons are merely Evil, as Eberron tends away from extreme alignments all around.

The basic rule of thumb is to ask whether or not the race has inherent alignment-based effects. Something with "Unholy Blight" or "Desecrate" as an SLA is probably Vile, while something that merely bites things a lot might be Vile or Evil.

I'd also say that, even within "always XYZ" sentient races, there should still be around 1% who fall outside of that category.

sonofzeal
2010-01-25, 02:00 AM
Added a section on moral dilemmas, to the post on Good/Evil.


A Note on Moral Dilemmas

Many DMs enjoy putting characters in difficult situations, to see what choice they make. These often lead to poignant storytelling and excellent RP. However, there is a danger of Exalted characters being "trapped", where every possible choice leads to a serious loss of status. In these cases, it should always be permissible for the Exalted character to take the "better" of the two options. The key question that should be asked is whether the actual action taken is Evil or Good.

For the purpose of the Expanded Alignment System, the ends do not justify the means, though it may serve drama for a character to make a difficult choice like that. If the actual action is Evil though, the person should suffer the penalties for committing an evil act, with the possibility of restoration later. For things that cannot be regained, like sacred vows and the Saint template, the Powers That Be should be encouraged to offer some sort of trade, some reward for that sacrifice, if it really resulted in some greater good. Examples might include some artifact or special ability, the chance to exchange those lost feats/levels for something new, or just recognition and praise from important NPCs. As for Vile entities, they should be willing to do an evil act even if it has otherwise positive repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest evil, they should not be overly concerned if a particular bit of mayhem and slaughter leads towards the greater good.

By parallel, a good act that has negative consequences should still be treated as if it were good. Examples include healing a mass murderer, saving a child prophesied to bring pain and torment, or willing self-sacrifice for some dark purpose. A Vile creature should strongly resist any action like that (though they may be forced by circumstances or superiors), and should regret it in the same way that a Good character might regret doing something evil for the greater good. This may also entail a loss of respect from their Vile peers, even if there is some admiration for the greater evil accomplished. As for Exalted entities, they should be willing to do a good act even if it has otherwise negative repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest good, they should not be punished for the end result of their actions (regrettable though they may be) if the actual steps they took were Good. An exception would be the aforementioned willing self-sacrifice for a dark purpose, although the issue here is more about why they were trying to accomplish it in the first place.

Unlike a good or evil act, a neutral act should be judged more by the foreseeable long term effects, if there are any. For the legally minded, Proximate Cause (http://law.jrank.org/pages/9534/Proximate-Cause.html) is a good standard here. If someone could be found negligent for their action that led to some significant good or evil, then the action should be considered at least mildly good or evil. Key here is the question of whether the good or evil result was logically foreseeable, given what they knew at the time, and of whether it led directly to that good or evil. In either case, this sort of moral negligence should not be treated as harshly as a direct action of villainy or nobleness.

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-25, 08:55 AM
Is his aim to protect innocents? No - his aim is to garner fame and fortune; if there's no glory in it, he won't do it. NOT GOOD.

If you "debase or destroy innocent life," regardless of intent, you are doing an Evil act.
So, wait. Are you saying that intent matters for Good but not for Evil? Does the text support that? Or are you saying that doing Evil or Good acts doesn't necessarily indicate Evil or Good alignment?


G/E: Behavior towards Innocents
- Good = Protect
- Evil = Kill
- Neutral = Neither Kill nor Protect
What's "innocent"? Never did anything wrong? Harmless?

Is, say, a typical rabbit innocent? If not, why not?

"Innocents" is a very broad group, and many characters will relate to different innocents quite differently. What of someone who protects some innocents but kills others? One who lacks compunctions against killing some innocents, but also has the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help some others? Zeal's character Y'G is either an example of that, or else actually qualifies as Good because children are "innocent" but adults aren't.


("Conscience" is, of course, a short form for "the universal objective ethical system by which goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world". I thought the former was a bit snappier.)
You'd probably be better off just coming out and saying what you mean. By which universal objective ethical system are you saying that goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world? Definitely not conscience; conscience is personal, and two different individuals' consciences may disagree.


For the purpose of the Expanded Alignment System, the ends do not justify the means, though it may serve drama for a character to make a difficult choice like that.
I'd like to note that this is contrary to how the PHB does alignment. Alignment is specifically stated to represent general moral and personal attitudes. So being willing to sacrifice the few to save the many out of altruism indicates Good alignment, and being willing to save the few to destroy the many out of cruelty indicates Evil alignment.

That sort of consideration isn't limited to bizarre hypothetical scenarios or something. For example, in order to prevent criminals from hurting people, you have standards of evidence low enough that innocent people sometimes get convicted too. Knowing this, you still don't raise your standards of evidence, because that would do more harm than good. At the extreme end of the spectrum, the only way to guarantee that no innocent people ever get punished is to never punish anyone, and that would be really bad.

Also, you've talked about Good as following a specific ethical code. Isn't following a code of ethics sort of Law's deal? Isn't disregarding this what make the Book of Exalted Deeds suck?

Good alignment basically means "tries to help others". Is there something wrong with that? Because if there isn't anything wrong with that, then it seems better not to complicate it up. And if there is something wrong with that, then we should specifically be trying to fix the specific things that are wrong, shouldn't we?

sonofzeal
2010-01-25, 02:48 PM
I'd like to note that this is contrary to how the PHB does alignment. Alignment is specifically stated to represent general moral and personal attitudes. So being willing to sacrifice the few to save the many out of altruism indicates Good alignment, and being willing to save the few to destroy the many out of cruelty indicates Evil alignment.

That sort of consideration isn't limited to bizarre hypothetical scenarios or something. For example, in order to prevent criminals from hurting people, you have standards of evidence low enough that innocent people sometimes get convicted too. Knowing this, you still don't raise your standards of evidence, because that would do more harm than good. At the extreme end of the spectrum, the only way to guarantee that no innocent people ever get punished is to never punish anyone, and that would be really bad.

Also, you've talked about Good as following a specific ethical code. Isn't following a code of ethics sort of Law's deal? Isn't disregarding this what make the Book of Exalted Deeds suck?

Good alignment basically means "tries to help others". Is there something wrong with that? Because if there isn't anything wrong with that, then it seems better not to complicate it up. And if there is something wrong with that, then we should specifically be trying to fix the specific things that are wrong, shouldn't we?
Actually, both BoED and FC2 indicate that an evil act is evil regardless of its end result. I can get you specific page numbers if you want. Also, this is not the PHB system (nor the BoED nor FC2 systems). This is my own take on it, and several of the definitions and standards have been shifted.



The first paragraph of the "exalted" writeup handles the standard-of-evidence issue. Omniscience is not required, merely taking proper action with regard to the information available. This necessarily means that it's possible to make a mistake, and that an honest mistake doesn't constitute an Evil act. Issues can arise in case of negligence, or of willful ignorance, and perhaps I should spell that out better. In general though, Exalted characters should be held to a reasonable standard of care but not punished for things outside their control. That's not a question of "sacrifice the few to save the many", that's a question of the limits on a "reasonable" standard of care.



The issue with saying "good = tries to help others" is twofold. First, it doesn't give a standard for what "help" means. If I firmly believe that it is better to be dead than to be an elf, then killing elves is "helping" them. We run straight into the objective/subjective wall, and if we go with objective, we need a standard.

Second, it lacks a metric. Is a "neutral" person someone who just isn't extreme either way? Is it someone who does a mixture of each? When does a "good" person slip down to "neutral"? What is "evil"? Does someone have to be committed to villainy to be considered "evil"? Where do you put someone who's merely a-moral?

This system attempts to address both issues.



The difference between "good person following the ethical code" and "lawful person following their personal code" is subtle, I'll admit. I think the key difference is that the lawful person does so because it is a code, and the good person does so because it is right.

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 02:53 PM
"Intent matters for Good, but not for Evil" does seem to be what most of the books suggest. An act motivated by selfish reasons, for example, donating large amounts of your wealth to charity, or spending lots of your time helping people in trouble, primarily because it will make you popular and increase your chance of getting power, is not good,

even if charity and helping others are normally Good by BoED. Still, it's not Evil either.

Sometimes context can matter (killing in self-defense is not normally evil, killing for profit is not normally good) but not always.

sonofzeal
2010-01-25, 03:08 PM
"Intent matters for Good, but not for Evil" does seem to be what most of the books suggest. An act motivated by selfish reasons, for example, donating large amounts of your wealth to charity, or spending lots of your time helping people in trouble, primarily because it will make you popular and increase your chance of getting power, is not good,

even if charity and helping others are normally Good by BoED. Still, it's not Evil either.

Sometimes context can matter (killing in self-defense is not normally evil, killing for profit is not normally good) but not always.
Again, this is my variant on the whole PHB system, and explicitly steps away from it at a few points. My goal was to massage the system until it's rational, self-consistent, and as un-ambiguous as possible. I'm not overly concerned with disagreeing with the PHB on a few specific points, and I think that's almost necessary.

Also, the problem with "Intent matters for Good, but not for Evil" is that it can make it impossible to stay Exalted. Is it Good or Evil to save the life of a child prophesied to bring slaughter and devastation to the world? In my opinion, a truely Good character should save the child, and that it wouldn't be an Evil act to do so even if it causes trouble farther down the line.

Essentially, if sacrificing the few to save the many is evil, and sacrificing the many to save the few is evil, Good is left with no recourse. I think that's a bad thing. My resolution is to allow Good to choose the more immediate action as the "good" one, and worry about the more removed one later. Of course an Exalted character should try to save the world too, but they shouldn't be stepping on faces to get there (unlike Jozan (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG68_WEB.jpg)). And if they shouldn't be stepping on faces, they should be allowed to go out of their way to avoid face-stepping without it being considered Evil. Make sense?

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 03:18 PM
The difference is, with a "prophesy" the good guy is fighting it all the way, they aren't "sacrificing the many for the few" because they believe the many aren't going to die if they do their job right.

"causing trouble further along the line" can be accounted for, if you take a "the future is never immutable" view.

A case of "what might happen" vs "what will happen"

While BoVD does have a "inaction while a person is actually committing mass murder is evil" comment, it doesn't say much about "saving a person who goes on to commit evil in the somewhat distant future"

Maybe because immediate inaction matters much more.

I like the comment in the David Gemmell books:

"What should a hero do if a child is drowning?"
"Save the child"

"What should they do if they are told the child will grow into an evil tyrant?"
"Still save the child- because that is what heroes do"

sonofzeal
2010-01-25, 03:28 PM
The difference is, with a "prophesy" the good guy is fighting it all the way, they aren't "sacrificing the many for the few" because they believe the many aren't going to die if they do their job right.

"causing trouble further along the line" can be accounted for, if you take a "the future is never immutable" view.

A case of "what might happen" vs "what will happen"

While BoVD does have a "inaction while a person is actually committing mass murder is evil" comment, it doesn't say much about "saving a person who goes on to commit evil in the somewhat distant future"

Maybe because immediate inaction matters much more.

I like the comment in the David Gemmell books:

"What should a hero do if a child is drowning?"
"Save the child"

"What should they do if they are told the child will grow into an evil tyrant?"
"Still save the child- because that is what heroes do"
That quote on the end is exactly it. Thank you for that. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2010-01-25, 03:36 PM
Was paraphrasing approximately, but David Gemmell did handle "good and evil" in interesting ways with "good men who sometimes do evil" and "evil men who try and do good"

And women as well.

Which is not to say the good characters are flawless, but they try hard.

And sometimes the evil characters achieve redemption.

And even "always Chaotic Evil" races sometimes turn out to be a bit less than this, and the attempted genocide of them suggested to be wrong- the Darok in Dark Moon, for example.

Roupe
2010-01-25, 03:39 PM
"What should they do if they are told the child will grow into an evil tyrant?"
"Still save the child- because that is what heroes do"

I liked the other solution to the tyrant to-be child problem, the hero takes the role of mentor in order to prevent it, or reduce it.
--
Just because a behavior or law is stupid, doesn't mean that it isn't enforced and safe to disregard.

Not to mention in some setting the Gods are active and would strike down with lightning against transgressors and perverter's of their oaths.

How do you feel the about the moody dictator gods that will only assist those they like and punish those that are not up to their standards?

In other settings, it could be lvl 20 wizards that enforces compliance to alignment, while the ignorant thinks its divine retribution.

The alignment could be seen as guidlines to avoid trouble both in life and afterlife.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-01-25, 04:46 PM
So, wait. Are you saying that intent matters for Good but not for Evil? Does the text support that? Or are you saying that doing Evil or Good acts doesn't necessarily indicate Evil or Good alignment?


What's "innocent"? Never did anything wrong? Harmless?

Is, say, a typical rabbit innocent? If not, why not?

"Innocents" is a very broad group, and many characters will relate to different innocents quite differently. What of someone who protects some innocents but kills others? One who lacks compunctions against killing some innocents, but also has the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help some others? Zeal's character Y'G is either an example of that, or else actually qualifies as Good because children are "innocent" but adults aren't.
Children are a potential subset of the Innocent group.

While the concept of Innocence lacks a rigorous definition, the "smell test" could be stated as "haven't done nuthin' wrong." Or, more simply, "blameless."

HYPOTHETICAL
Take the case of a falsely-imprisoned character escaping from a jail. Assume that this is a normal jail and that the jail keeper is an ordinary, Neutral, member of the Watch.

When escaping, the Good character will not kill this keeper. He may be trying to stop the Good character from escaping, but he's "just doing his job" - he is otherwise an ordinary joe who is not acting with any nefarious intent. If forced to fight, the Good character will demand the keeper surrender; if he is forced to mortally wound the keeper, he will do his best to stop his death. If all else fails and the keeper dies, the Good character will be deeply remorseful for the death.

When escaping, a Neutral character will try to find a way out that doesn't involve killing the keeper but, if there's no other way to get out, he may very well kill him. A case of "bad luck, chummer" more or less.

An Evil character will stab the keeper through the eye at the best possible moment, and will loot the body on the way out. In the event his "code" prevents him from killing left-handed redheads, he will nonetheless act brutally in escaping from the jail - the lives of strangers are meaningless to him.
Y'G is, as I said before, likely a case of Neutral. Y'G shows a goodly amount of deference for the lives of others (and will defend a subset of those lives she feels like defending) but is perfectly willing to make a living killing other people for money - even people who have otherwise done nothing "wrong."

...sorry for the interruption in the thread. I've already made my concerns about Zeal's system clear.

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-30, 09:51 AM
sonofzeal, you speak of a man whose heart and mind are at war with one another. But what of a man whose heart and mind are united, such that thought and action are as one? Further, does not a sensible individual not both plan ahead and deviate from his plans as the situation warrants?

Personally, I'll follow authority to stay out of trouble and follow traditions when my family wants me to, but I don't feel much respect for either. And I'm obsessive-compulsive enough that I'm irrationally consistent and consistently irrational, but only to a degree.

I posted something on the subject of Law and Chaos recently, as it happens:


In D&D 3.5, a Lawful character is "honorable". She consistently acts "how she's supposed to"; in other words, she reliably acts how at least one other being thinks or thought she should act. Conversely, a Chaotic character is "independent". He regularly does "what he feels like" and resists others' attempts to control his behavior.

And that's it. That's what Law and Chaos are. Feel free to rename them to "Compliance" and "Independence" (and Good and Evil to "Kindness" and "Cruelty") if you want less misleading terms. This allows characters in the game to talk about things with words that simply have their normal meanings, which is nice.

Unlike with Good and Evil, promoting Lawful behavior need not be Lawful and promoting Chaotic behavior need not be Chaotic. A Chaotic dude can try to amass loads of blindly loyal followers to help him to maintain his personal freedom and a Lawful character could be an honorable member of an organization dedicated to defending personal freedom and individual choice.

For example, your point of variable valuations of life has no bearing on Good/Evil; there's not a scrap of text to support this as a valid criteria for aligning someone on the Good/Evil axis.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Case in point: if you held all lives to be equal, you would never fight in self-defense.
Truly, an assertion as intriguing as it is preposterous.


After all, if someone's going to die, who is to say he should die rather than you?
I say that a murderer should die rather than me. I'd rather he not go on to murder other people, because I value their lives too. DUH.


An Objective Morality System is one where Morality (what is "Good" and "Evil") is defined in absolute terms ("killing innocents is Evil; protecting innocents is Good").
If you're using "innocent" as an absolute term -- that is, to refer only to those who have never done anything wrong -- and Evil just means killing innocents, then I think that you could pretty much murder people all day and not be Evil.


If individuals determine their alignment, then nobody detects as Evil - for who believes they are really "the bad guys?"
An individual's perception of himself could sensibly determine his alignment. The standard might be "awareness that he harms innocents" or something similar. Obviously it shouldn't be "thinks the word 'evil' describes him" -- not unless you want alignment to measure opinions on semantics!


Nowhere in this description does it rely on "following the rules" - it merely notes that Lawful types respect authority and honor traditions, while Chaotics disrespect authority ("resent being told what to do") and dishonor traditions ("favor new ideas over tradition").

Isn't that sufficient? A Lawful character will always give authority figures the respect their position demands and pay respect to local traditions - even if they do not bow to said authority or follow the traditions. There is a reason that the description does not say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, blindly obey authority, follow tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."
As you noted, "respect" refers to deference to a right, privilege, or position. "Deference", in turn, means submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another. So... Isn't that pretty much doin' what The Man tells you to do? What does "respecting authority" mean in practice, if not obedience?


Not Good
(1) Assassination for profit: "respect for life" generally means not taking a life unless absolutely necessary, or for a higher purpose. Money is not a higher purpose.

(2) Killing sentient beings unnecessarily: "respect for sentient beings" is unlikely to be served by putting them in the same category as cattle.

Not Evil
(1) Killing for food: Evil goes out of its way to kill or degrade innocent life. If you are killing just to eat, and not for sport, then you are not Evil.

(2) Eating the dead: Provided you're not desecrating the dead to produce unholy abominations, or otherwise "degrading innocent life" you are not Evil. Eating corpses in a respectful fashion cannot be called "degrading" of the dead.

So what does that make you? Neutral - you're Not Good, and you're Not Evil. Done and done. And it was all figured out by looking at the definitions, not some complicated and sloppy attempt of moral equivalency.
Blatant sophistry! Assassination for profit and killing sentient beings unnecessarily are Evil, while killing for food and eating the dead are merely Neutral. How does that add up to Neutral? You could take any character, list all of their Evil deeds under "Not Good", and list all of their Good deeds under "Not Evil". That doesn't make every character Neutral. Y'G is Neutral, if indeed she's Neutral, because of the bit you left out: protecting children. She has both Evil and Good traits.


Y'G is, as I said before, likely a case of Neutral. Y'G shows a goodly amount of deference for the lives of others (and will defend a subset of those lives she feels like defending) but is perfectly willing to make a living killing other people for money - even people who have otherwise done nothing "wrong."
Perhaps so, but I'd point out that this illustrates that sometimes you have to go outside the text to make alignment work. Y'G doesn't fit into exactly one of the categories "kills innocents", "protects innocents", and "neither kills nor protects innocents". Rather, she fits into the first and the second categories because she kills some innocents but protects others! But, although I don't believe that the PHB explicitly states this, we understand that a character isn't supposed to have more than one alignment. So instead of calling her both Good and Evil, you compromise and call her Neutral, even though she doesn't fit the description of Neutral.


Under my expanded systems she's solidly Evil because she rejects the universal ethical code. The things she does are not wrong to her so she's not Vile, but she's still well outside standard ethical behaviour and doesn't have any problem with that. Since she's categorized cleanly and neatly, we can move on with the game in a smooth and orderly fashion.
Um, bunk. You haven't established a universal ethical code that she rejects.

You're probably using "standard ethical behavior" as an obfuscating way of saying "what humans consider morally acceptable" here. But an objective morality is conceptually supposed to be independent of anyone's opinions. That's why I dislike the List o' Rules approach to Good and Evil. The rules are pretty much all either of the form "Don't do this thing that humans consider immoral" or just completely stupid. Specifically adhering to human standards should be Lawful, if anything.


Actually, both BoED and FC2 indicate that an evil act is evil regardless of its end result.
Do they explain what makes an act Evil, if not its results?


The thing is, its unclear what would align means as Good or Evil but their ends. The broad general categories of action that get deemed "Good" or "Evil" are, quite sensibly, defined by their consequences. "Killing innocents" means causing their deaths, "protecting innocents" means preventing harm to them, and so on. Swinging your sword in front of you is morally different depending on whether someone is standing there and, if so, what that someone is like. Context matters. Consequences matter.

Some types of actions, like protecting innocents by killing innocents, are gonna be both Good and Evil in the sense that they fall into both a Good and an Evil category of action. And really, when you take into account Chaos Theory and the Butterfly Effect and whatnot, pretty much everything that anyone does is going to have some benefit to some innocents and some harmful result for others. So a "Good act" presumably is just one decidedly more Good than it is Evil; the alignment represents its general consequences, just like character alignment represents a creature's general moral and personal attitudes. If everything that's Evil at all is "Evil-aligned", then most everything is "Evil-aligned", or so it seems to me...

I don't see how the thing where you value your own "righteousness" over the welfare of others would count as Good at all. Isn't it Good to value the welfare of others and make personal sacrifices to help those in need?

That's not a question of "sacrifice the few to save the many", that's a question of the limits on a "reasonable" standard of care.
If your standards of evidence are such that one in every thousand convicts is innocent, then you punish one innocent person for every 999 criminals. If there are a million people in your prison system, roughly one thousand of them are innocent. Almost certainly at least one is innocent. Either that cost is acceptable given the benefits or it isn't. You can dress this up however you want, but that doesn't change what it is.

You can lower the number of innocents convicted by raising standards of evidence, but the cost in innocent lives might not be worth it. And in order to guarantee that you never punish an innocent person, you need to never punish anyone at all.

If you rule a small territory with a small population, there may be few enough people that you probably aren't punishing even one innocent, but you're still making the same tradeoffs, just on a smaller scale. Is the emperor Evil while mayors are Good because the emperor has greater impact? That seems odd to say when the relative amounts of Good and Evil are the same in each case.

Do you know how many traffic fatalities happen in a year? We seriously sacrifice tens of thousands of lives so that people can get around faster. And those aren't all the result of an informed choice; some of them are children who had to be strapped into the back seat kicking and screaming. The moral response to this tradeoff surely isn't to pretend that it doesn't happen.

I'm not saying that faster transit isn't worth the cost in human lives. I am saying that if some dark god of transportation (domains: Travel, Portal, Pact, Trade) was willing to set up a teleportation network that would get us around even faster if we just sacrificed a few human infants to him, and he wouldn't devour their souls or anything, then that would be more moral than what we're doing now.


The issue with saying "good = tries to help others" is twofold. First, it doesn't give a standard for what "help" means.
To help a sentient being is to hasten the fulfillment of its goals.


We run straight into the objective/subjective wall, and if we go with objective, we need a standard.
Yeah, we do need a standard. So what's it gonna be?


Is a "neutral" person someone who just isn't extreme either way? Is it someone who does a mixture of each?
Either.


When does a "good" person slip down to "neutral"?
That's a question in your system, too. How low a priority does "being ethical", whatever that means, have to be for a Good character to fall into Neutrality? Given that alignment is really a spectrum, there are gonna be gray areas no matter how you divide it up. You've actually created more gray areas since now there are four borders between neighboring alignments per axis instead of just two.


What is "evil"? Does someone have to be committed to villainy to be considered "evil"? Where do you put someone who's merely a-moral?
Having chosen to work against others' interests, whether as an end in itself or as a means to an end, is Evil, just as having chosen to work for others' interests is Good. In the likely event that both are present, either one general attitude dominates or there is a rough balance.


The difference between "good person following the ethical code" and "lawful person following their personal code" is subtle, I'll admit. I think the key difference is that the lawful person does so because it is a code, and the good person does so because it is right.
Many different people follow many different codes, many because they think that their code is right. But surely no one tries to follow every code. That something is a code is not itself reason to follow it, for anyone.

How does it "being right" make Good-aligned characters follow this code? In what sense is the code "right"? How does anyone know about it, and why do they care?

sonofzeal
2010-02-09, 04:44 AM
Devils_Advocate - The quoting is getting a bit laboursome, so I'm going to try to reply to your arguments as a whole.

You seem to be criticizing the concept of Good and Evil as a whole. This is a fair point - it's difficult if not impossible to cohesively define them in a way that all gaming groups can agree to and that makes sense in the real world. Morality is one of those topics on which there's very much dissent. I've done my share of philosophy classes, I've studied Mills and Kant and Confucius and Aristotle and their various takes on ethics, and the various problems and criticisms of each.

Indeed, the whole concept of "Good" and "Evil" is fraught with difficulty, as you have rightly pointed out. To some extent, we're merely enforcing our own petty little preconceived cultural notions onto a fantasy world far broader and more varied in many ways than the real one. Our concept of racism, for example, completely breaks down in the face of "often chaotic evil" compared to "usually chaotic evil" compared to "always chaotic evil". Democracy and modern judicial systems also fail to properly apply. Yet players from our cultural background will usually expect these fantasy cultures to adhere to our sensitivities, and this often strains plausibility and rationalization, and puts considerable burden on the whole concepts of Right and Wrong.

However, it's a fantasy world (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra). One of the things many people expect from the fantasy genre is a more straighforward, simpler place where things are neatly divided into categories and archetypes are made plain. We want savage orcs and snobby elves and rugged dwarves, and there's a certain willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to culture (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil) and physics (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw) and morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigBad). We want our whites whiter and our blacks blacker. Now obviously this is a massive over-generalization (I for one love Eberron and all its ethical ambiguity), but it's still a staple part of the convention and of this game in particular. We can try to sort it all on Law-Chaos, but that's not satisfying for many people, and again would require substantial manipulation of the D&D rules and cosmology to handle.

In short, as far as I'm concerned, the question is mostly about expanding and clarifying and improving what we are already working with, rather than replacing it wholesale. That's what this is about.



As to actually defining Good/Evil, for the purpose of the game I'd generally go with Kant. He fits the sort of morality I'd expect from heroes in game. "On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives", in particular, was part of the foundation for my section on ethical dilemmas.

Now, what your specific imperatives are in any particular game, that's a question to run by the DM. Their opinions will necessarily differ from person to person, and anything I spell out here is not going to change their mind. Here's a partial list though...

- Don't murder (Warfare is not murder, neither is execution, nor is killing someone who is known to be seeking your death. In case of accidental or indirect death, consider negligence and proximal cause.)

- Don't lie (Obfusication is not lying, neither is a refusal to answer. Deliberately misleading a legal investigation should usually be consider a lie.)

- Don't give worship to evil forces(saying something offhandedly positive about an evil power is not giving worship, neither is merely witnessing evil ceremony)

- Don't abuse good forces (this would include knowingly causing death or serious damage to celestials; defiling relics or sacred spaces belonging to Good gods; or willfully corrupting paragons of goodness)


Again, a good question to ask is "What Would Kant Do". While imperfect (his views on sexual morality in particular are awkward), it gives a good starting point to work from. And yes, strict Kantianism comes down fairly heavily on the "Lawful" end of things, but one could imagine someone who follows the Catagorical Imperatives and yet is unhappy with authority figures, emotional rather than logical (and possibly emotionally drawn to actions that follow the Imperatives), and is creative and adaptive.


Anyway, hope that all helps.

hamishspence
2010-02-09, 05:13 AM
Champions of Ruin takes the approach that if a character has a mix of evil and good traits, but the evil traits (such as lack of respect for life) are shown by "routinely committing evil acts" the character is Evil.

Savage Species takes a similar approach, stating it's quite normal for Evil beings to behave in a "Good" fashion toward most people, but in an "Evil" fashion toward a subset of people.

BoED does, in general, tend to follow a Kantian morality in some ways- motive makes the difference between a Good act and a Non-good act, even if the consequences are the same. It also uses lying as the example for "acts which jeopardise the Exalted status of the character"

Defenders of the Faith similarly says paladins are forbidden from lying, stealing, etc because they are evil acs.

BoVD is slightly more generous, saying that lying is not inherently evil, but so morally risky that most Good moral codes forbid it.

Roderick_BR
2010-02-09, 02:18 PM
I like it. I remember someone made something like that, but didn't put it in very simple terms.
What you did here is add a "neutral" 9-aligments system, with the classic extremes all around it.
The new expressions (from the BoVD and BoED?) are kinda like the system 4E uses? With the "gooder than good" and "eviler than evil"?

By what I understood, you can make the basic aligments expand and overlap, still having people fit inside some concepts, but with more freedom to "move around", as human mature's likely to do.
For example, your "exalted" paladin could slip to "just" good, without losing it's abilities, while a neutral bard could slip towards lawful, but still be able to advance as bard, since he'd need to be axiomatic to get stuck.

I think most people that says the alignment system is flawed is precisely the lack of in-depth explaination. You put villains like Lex Luthor, Doctor Doom, Ra's Al Ghul, Doctor Octopus, and you just slap "LE" on them all. That's why people call the alignment system a "straight-jacked" (even if the books even says it's not) it's because they think it has no flexibility.

I may add it to my little system I'm running with some friends to see how it turns out. I'm already using the alignement variant paladins, this gives a bit more flexibilty. A Justice Paladin could be somewhere between Axiomatic Exalted and Lawful Good, being that lawful and good would be a more loose kind of guy, and Axiomatic Exalted the classic heroic type.




Meh, depends on who's writing for him. Plus, you know, he is kind of a jerk (http://www.superdickery.com/).
Specially on how you interpret the cover.
That one where Super is like "his music is cool, too bad I need to stop it", must have a reason, as does the evil-superman chasing Jimmy Olsen (he was affected by some alien thing, I don't remmember well), and the one the "evil justice league" (they were all magically created evil clones). The one where Super rips Jimmy's homework, though, he IS a jerk.

hamishspence
2010-02-09, 02:47 PM
The "Chaotic Evil" pic of Batman in the famous motivational poster comes from the Batman: Jekyll & Hyde comic, where he is, in fact, trying to save somebody from consuming the ice cream that Two Face has poisoned with the Hyde drug.

When he gets a closer look- that person he's trying to save turns out to be Two Face.

sonofzeal
2010-02-09, 06:29 PM
The "Chaotic Evil" pic of Batman in the famous motivational poster comes from the Batman: Jekyll & Hyde comic, where he is, in fact, trying to save somebody from consuming the ice cream that Two Face has poisoned with the Hyde drug.

When he gets a closer look- that person he's trying to save turns out to be Two Face.
You are a never-ending font of information, Hamishspence. Rock on.

hamishspence
2010-02-10, 07:22 AM
Was more of a "sometimes a picture can be a little misleading when it comes to judging the action"

As with the Superman comic covers- the cover being designed to give people the wrong impression- so when they read the comic they go "So that's what he did and why he did it."