PDA

View Full Version : New Alignment System



BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-02, 03:48 PM
I've always been a bit disenchanted with the Alignment system in the d20 rules. It always seemed too restrictive to me, only allowing 9 possible mentalities. It also seemed overly vague about what those mentalities were. So, as I was designing an entirely new core system (which I'll post if I ever finish, or if anyone is interested enough to ask to see), I came up with a new Alignment system to go with it.

My main problem with the D20 system was that vastly different characters could have the same alignment. A Bard who manipulates others into doing the right thing, always with a tall tale on his lips and always willing to make false promises to achieve his goals would be Chaotic Good, while a noble outlaw who always makes good on his word, but doesn't respect the lawful authority of the land would, as well. Those two people are almost polar opposites in many senses, yet the game mechanics treat them as if they were the same. Another good example is Lawful Evil. Would a LE character keep his promises, if he made them to an enemy? It varies, yet the answer to that question speaks volumes about his character.

The D20 alignment system has 2 axes and 3 positions on each axis, as we all know. With 9 possible choices, this just didn't seem to reflect enough different mentalities to populate a believable world. I decided to keep that basic structure, but expand on it. So my new system contains 3 axes and has 7 positions on each. 343 possibilities seems more than adequate. I tried to steer clear of simply duplicating the existing system with more nuance, but at the same time, I wanted to pay tribute to the system that inspired me (both positively and negatively) by naming and describing some of the positions after D20 positions. So without further ado, here 'tis.


Integrity
Integrity described a character’s sense of honor and their honesty. This is not a character’s complete sense of morality. The overall morality of a character is based on a combination of Integrity and Empathy. The seven possible values are as follows.
1. Pathological A Pathological character cannot help but lie almost all of the time. Every promise they make will be broken. Oddly, they can be trusted because one always knows that their claims are false and their promises will be broken.
2. Dishonorable A Dishonorable character is one who takes some satisfaction from lying and breaking their promises. Not everything this character says will be a lie, and not every promise will be broken, but the majority will.
3. Untrustworthy An Untrustworthy character sees no value in the concept of honor. He will occasionally tell the truth or keep his promises, but usually only because he knows that doing so is necessary to function in society.
4. Neutral A Neutral character is fairly ambivalent about the concept of honor. He understands that honesty and keeping one’s promises is a necessary and sometimes even desirable thing. This character will usually be honest with others he knows, but would not hesitate to lie to a stranger.
5. Trustworthy A Trustworthy character understands that there is some value in honor, and will make some effort to maintain some. As the label suggests, this character can usually be trusted.
6. Honorable An Honorable character is one for whom honor is an important part of their life. They will make efforts to be honest and keep their promises to everyone they meet. Failing to do so will cause them mental anguish.
7. Paragon A Paragon is one for whom honor and integrity mean everything. This character would sooner die than bring dishonor to themselves or their family/clan/company/group.

Empathy
Empathy is a character’s willingness to put themselves in another’s shoes, to sympathize and understand through relation to one’s own experiences what another character must feel. Together with Integrity, Empathy helps form and codify a character’s morality. The seven possible values are as follows.
1. Evil An Evil character not only has no empathy whatsoever, he or she revels in doing bad things. This is sadism in the extreme, and almost every act will cause harm or pain to someone or something. For those very rare occasions on which this isn’t true, it will be to this character’s chagrin. This is as if one took sadism and added to it some twisted sense of obligation to do harm or cause pain.
2. Sadistic A Sadistic character takes joy in harming or causing pain to others. This character may not feel any anguish at missing an opportunity to do so, but will probably feel some regret.
3. Sociopath A Sociopath is a character who completely lacks the ability to empathize with others. This character feels no particular motivation to harm others or cause pain, but would never hesitate to do so if it were in his best interests.
4. Bad A Bad character is one who has a conscience, but has twisted it to his own ends. This character would not think too much about harming another, but might balk at torture, for instance.
5. Neutral A Neutral character is a fairly normal one. This character has a conscience, but it can be sidestepped at times. He may feel some mental anguish at violating his conscience, which may cause him to try and right his harmful act if it seems a wise course of action.
6. Caring A Caring character is one who feels strongly that his conscience exists for a reason. Violating it is not something done lightly, and only when necessary. This character may be tortured by a harmful act for quite some time, perhaps even the rest of their life.
7. Righteous A Righteous character is one who could not possibly learn of another's pain without feeling it, themselves. Their level of empathy is crippling, at times. This character would sooner die than cause harm to another.

Mental Structure
Mental structure describes a character’s sense of structure and organization. It also defines his respect for such systems, as in laws and procedures. Note how this is different from his Integrity, although the two are often related. The seven possible values (as well as descriptions which may clarify their uses) are as follows.
1. Chaotic A Chaotic character is one with some debilitating mental defect. Almost no act by this character would make any sense whatsoever, or be in alignment with any rule or law. Remember the player who constantly insists that his 1st level Ranger/3rd level Pastry Chef can dual-wield wet noodles (stats posted elsewhere in this forum)? Yup, that’s Chaotic. This character has no goals and no aspirations other than their own moment-to-moment amusement.
2. Anarchic An Anarchic character is a wild one. They tend to set and pursue goals, but their methods of achieving these goals often make little sense to others. He lacks almost all respect for authority, and is likely to act on almost any whim that strikes him.
3. Disorderly A Disorderly character is one for whom methodology and rules are pretty pointless. His means of pursuing his goals make sense, but he often goes about them in a haphazard way. The guy who’s always late to the party, and has no real plans for his life is likely Disorderly.
4. Neutral A Neutral character is one for whom organization and methodology are useful, but only in certain cases. Most people fall into this category, following the law whenever prudent, keeping careful record of finances, a decent accounting of his time, and basically leaving everything else up to chance or a whim.
5. Orderly An Orderly character is one for whom life is better when it is structured. This type of character usually keeps good records of most things, and excellent records of anything important, and makes an effort to follow the rules whenever possible. He would usually feel some distress at a change of plans or infraction of the rules, but could deal with it.
6. Lawful A Lawful character loves order. This is the type of character that keeps methodical records of anything which lends itself to record keeping, and follows the law almost religiously. He would feel a great deal of distress if someone were to scatter his records, force him to make sudden changes to his plans, or put him in a position which would require him to break the law.
7. Methodical A Methodical character is one for whom order and structure are overwhelming compulsions. A character with debilitating OCD would be considered Methodical. This character might go into paroxysms if anyone were to modify their records, force them to change their plans or force them to break even the most minor law.
It is unavoidable that there would be some numerical correlation between the descriptions, but this should not be considered to be absolute. For instance, a Sociopathic character has no particular desires to harm others, but would never hesitate to do so, while a Bad character often finds desires to harm others, in contradiction to the "more-empathy-as-the-list-goes-on" structure which seems to prevail. I tried to put the positions in order based on how much of the described concept they embody, rather than on a "less-to-more-desirable" order. You can see how this worked out with Empathy, where the Neutral position ends up closer to the high end of the scale. I suppose one could eliminate Sociopathic, and give those features to Neutral, and add in another "more Empathic" level above it, but it just didn't sit well with me to do that.
It's also worth pointing out that the extreme ends of each category are just that: Extreme. They're not good positions to choose for PCs, but might make for some interesting NPCs.

So in use, a traditional Robin Hood type character (the noble outlaw mentioned above) would be Honorable, Caring and Disorderly.
Using this optional system would require a bit of modification to the core rules, of course. Alignment requirements for most aspects of the game (such as restrictions on item use, patron deities and classes) would have to be a bit looser, to account for the vastly increased number of possible alignments. Once the new alignment of a particular feature is defined according to the new rules (this would require a bit of a judgement call in most cases), strict restrictions could be broadened by one category either way, and looser restrictions could add one or two levels of discrepancy for either of the old axes, so long as they don't cross the line of neutrality. So for instance, if a particular intelligent artifact is LE under the old rules and restricts usage to Lawful Evil creatures, we might redefine it as Honorable, Sociopathic and Orderly under the new rules. By broadening the categories, anyone who is Trustworthy-Paragon, Sadistic-Bad and neutral-Lawful could use it. If there is a single axis of compatibility (as when the requirements for using the above artifact are that the user be any Lawful Alignment), anyone who is Neutral-Paragon, Evil-Righteous and Neutral-Methodical could use it. Notice how the last category uses only 1 level of change down, this is because although a Disorderly character would not be the polar opposite of the artifact in terms of Mental Structure, he is still outside the scope.

Notice that there is one apparent glaring lack to this system: True Neutral. There really isn't a combination which obviously leads to a character who strives to maintain a balance between law and chaos, good and evil. However, if you read the descriptions closely, you'll see that Neutral, Sociopathic, Neutral fits this niche rather nicely, with some wiggle room in the middle category

I'm open to comments and criticisms, and of course, this is free for anyone to use or duplicate as they see fit (else I would not have posted it on a public forum).

Crisis21
2010-11-02, 09:52 PM
Personally, the two major problems with just about any system like the alignment system is that it is either too complex or too simple. Hitting a stable middle ground is effectively impossible as a too-simple system has the problem of being too ill-defined and general, a too-complex system has the problem of being hard to understand and navigate, and something in between has what amounts to both problems at the same time.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of too simple when it comes to character mentality.

In my opinion, when you have a complex alignment system, it does provide much more definition to a character's personality, but it also puts more restriction on the player to maintain the stated alignment/personality. The d20 alignment system, while simple, allows for much more leeway in regards to a player's interpretation.

The system you have proposed is more complex than I would really be willing to adhere to. Adding another axis, sure. Adding what amounts to four more levels to each axis strikes me as a bit much. Also, I find your descriptions of some of the alignments to be a bit confusing, particularly given their placement on the scale you've presented. I would advise working out descriptions that come across as logical and comprehensive to the average reader if you intend to make this system work.

Aran Banks
2010-11-02, 10:48 PM
Two things bother me here:

1) The way you describe options 1-3 in each alignment state. They're always negative. And the way you describe 5-7 is always positive. Kinda slanted... ya think?

2) Righteous Chaotic people don't make sense. You're upholding the forces of "good" (which you haven't defined beyond something fuzzy, so we're still stuck with the main alignment problem) and at the same time you're always flip-flopping.

Same with Pathological Righteous people. The system as too much overlap.

Dust
2010-11-02, 10:55 PM
I agree with all of the above; in addition, the descriptors you chose - while perhaps the best-suited for the job - suffer greatly due to how they sound when strung together. For example, if I wanted to play a Dexter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkly_Dreaming_Dexter)-like serial killer, I would effectively be Untrustworthy Orderly Bad. A gentleman thief might be Neutral-Neutral-Anarchic in your system; why is 'Chaotic Neutral' such an inferior way of saying that?

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-03, 01:12 AM
In my opinion, when you have a complex alignment system, it does provide much more definition to a character's personality, but it also puts more restriction on the player to maintain the stated alignment/personality. The d20 alignment system, while simple, allows for much more leeway in regards to a player's interpretation.I always pictured alignment as being based on the character's actions, not the other way around. I designed the system to be a fluid one, which is one of the reasons I went with 7 positions instead of the 5 I had originally planned. That way, a shift from one position to the next is not quite as drastic.

I understand your point, though. This isn't intended to be or particularly useful as a system meant to constrain a character's behavior at all. Such a system is best served by fewer definitions. I never minded the old school, single axis system in that capacity. With a single axis, it's much easier for the DM to say "Ok, so your Chaotic character wants to attack some random guy in the tavern for disparaging the king? That's out of character."

I can see a couple good reasons for playing alignment this way, but I personally don't care to do so, myself. If the need for playing alignment that way ever came up, I imagine I would use a simpler version, such as considering all the positions on either side of neutral to be a single one for the purposes of constraining a character's behavior, taking us back to 3 positions and 27 possible alignments.

I should have said this in the OP, probably, but this is the very first time I've put anything of the sort out there for other people to read, and I just didn't think of it.


Also, I find your descriptions of some of the alignments to be a bit confusing, particularly given their placement on the scale you've presented. I would advise working out descriptions that come across as logical and comprehensive to the average reader if you intend to make this system work.I understand this. I'm no great communicator, and the descriptions you see were initially intended for my eyes only, as guides and reminders while I try to put everything together and polish it. If there are any parts which you feel are unclear, I'd be happy to try to explain them better, and I'm open to help with describing them.


1) The way you describe options 1-3 in each alignment state. They're always negative. And the way you describe 5-7 is always positive. Kinda slanted... ya think?The numbers are just there for formatting and clarity, really. They don't have anything to do with the actual system, and you could just as easily number them the opposite way. Also, Empathy has 4 'negative' positions, one neutral and only 2 'positive'.
I'm not sure what exactly you meant, I tried to respond, but if I'm off base, feel free to clarify.


Righteous Chaotic people don't make sense. You're upholding the forces of "good" (which you haven't defined beyond something fuzzy, so we're still stuck with the main alignment problem) and at the same time you're always flip-flopping.Righteous people aren't about "good" per se, but about embodying empathy. The distinction is important, and I flubbed the description something fierce on that one. I'll make changes to the description to clarify what I meant. As far as the weirdness of certain combinations, I have met some people who have some truly bizarre mental structures. I think the best way to use it is to use alignments involving polar extremes on the different axes as alignments of mentally ill people. Normal people would be those who fall in the middle 3 ranks, with quite a few varieties of particularly upright or unsavory sorts in between.


in addition, the descriptors you chose - while perhaps the best-suited for the job - suffer greatly due to how they sound when strung together.I agree, having three axes which all need names is cumbersome. I'm open to suggestions on naming or labeling conventions.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 04:59 AM
What if a character is simultaneously Righteous and Sadistic? Righteous toward the innocent, Sadistic toward those who prey on them?

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-03, 07:11 AM
What if a character is simultaneously Righteous and Sadistic? Righteous toward the innocent, Sadistic toward those who prey on them?
I would label that character Sociopathic on the empathy scale, but Honorable on the Integrity scale and say their code of honor involves protecting the innocent.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 10:31 AM
Thing is though, neither Sociopathic trait fits.

"Lack of empathy"- they empathise with the innocent. BIG time.

"feels no particular motivation to harm others or cause pain, but would never hesitate to do so if it were in his best interests."-

They are virtually addicted to causing pain, and do so even when it's definitely not in their own best interests.

Because, from their point of view, their victims deserve it.

Dust
2010-11-03, 10:40 AM
You'd be better off with an three-tier system denoting physical capabilities, mental faculties, and social abilitity. This way you could have, for examples, a 'Big/Dumb/Wierdo' character.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-03, 12:26 PM
Thing is though, neither Sociopathic trait fits.

"Lack of empathy"- they empathise with the innocent. BIG time.

"feels no particular motivation to harm others or cause pain, but would never hesitate to do so if it were in his best interests."-

They are virtually addicted to causing pain, and do so even when it's definitely not in their own best interests.

Because, from their point of view, their victims deserve it.
I pictured the character you're describing as caring for the innocent out of some sense of obligation. If it's genuine empathy for the innocent folk and a genuine love of causing pain for the bad folks, then I suppose he's just Neutral wrt Empathy. He has a conscience (empathizes with the innocent), but it can be sidestepped (with respect to bad folk). I'd still say he was Honorable wrt Integrity, because that sense of honor is what makes it possible to reconcile the two conflicting feelings.


You'd be better off with an three-tier system denoting physical capabilities, mental faculties, and social abilitity. This way you could have, for examples, a
'Big/Dumb/Wierdo' character.
I'm trying to make alignment more complex, not make a whole character sheet less complex.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 01:03 PM
It's that Integrity, that leads me to see such a character as more like LE than, say, CG/CN, which is what is sometimes suggested.

Neutral on the Empathy scale, in this case, means not in the middle, but drawing from both ends simultaneously.

I wonder- could the other two axes work in a similar way?

He could be Honorable, bordering on Paragon, when dealing with the innocent, and other defenders of them, and Dishonorable, bordering on Pathological, when infiltrating the "bad guys"

Mental Structure is harder to justify drawing from both ends for, though.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-04, 07:17 AM
It's that Integrity, that leads me to see such a character as more like LE than, say, CG/CN, which is what is sometimes suggested.

Neutral on the Empathy scale, in this case, means not in the middle, but drawing from both ends simultaneously.

I wonder- could the other two axes work in a similar way?

I intended for the Neutral position to be just that, either not going to either end of the spectrum or going to both ends of the spectrum equally and alternately. So that's a good description.


He could be Honorable, bordering on Paragon, when dealing with the innocent, and other defenders of them, and Dishonorable, bordering on Pathological, when infiltrating the "bad guys"

Mental Structure is harder to justify drawing from both ends for, though.I'm not sure about that, but only because you included the extremes. I intended all of the extremes to be quite extreme. Someone who is Pathological feels an overwhelming need to lie about everything. It's not something a mentally stable person would really be. The same with Paragon, I created that as the extreme end. A Paragon is the type of person who would commit ritual suicide rather than lie or fail in some task. The only 'normal' person who might be a Paragon would be the most honorable of Samurai, for instance.

But on the other hand, it is a system for gaming, which means it's open to your interpretation. If you see the extreme ends of the scale as less extreme than me, there's nothing wrong with that.

Here's a question for you pertaining to the first quote above: What do you think of a separate position for people who fluctuate between two ends of the spectrum, vs one who sits right in the middle?
Alternately, what do you think of having a character pick two positions from each axis? I mean, that would increase the number of alignments exponentially (a total of 117,649 possible combinations), but it would almost certainly be as complete a system as is possible to work with. With only 21 total positions, it'd still be feasible for a player to figure out how any given character would act, just by reading their alignment.

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 07:44 AM
I'm not sure about that, but only because you included the extremes. I intended all of the extremes to be quite extreme. Someone who is Pathological feels an overwhelming need to lie about everything. It's not something a mentally stable person would really be. The same with Paragon, I created that as the extreme end. A Paragon is the type of person who would commit ritual suicide rather than lie or fail in some task. The only 'normal' person who might be a Paragon would be the most honorable of Samurai, for instance.

But on the other hand, it is a system for gaming, which means it's open to your interpretation. If you see the extreme ends of the scale as less extreme than me, there's nothing wrong with that.

That's why I phrased it as just below each extreme, but bordering on each.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-06, 01:36 AM
That's why I phrased it as just below each extreme, but bordering on each.

Now that you mention this, the character you're describing (real empathy for the good guys, real sadism for the bad guys) does seem kinda messed up in the head. The extremes might be a good place for him.

hamishspence
2010-11-06, 05:22 AM
Thing is though, I've seen lots of people express delight in the thought of exceptionally "vile" criminals being tortured by other criminals,

say that a legal system that did it officially as punishment for such crimes, wouldn't be committing evil acts,

and sometimes say they "consider themselves the most moral person they know".

So extrapolating from wish-fulfilment, to a character that actually does this sort of thing in a D&D world, is not hard.

Arathnos
2010-11-06, 03:17 PM
I think the problem inherent in your system is a general misinterpretation of the standard alignments. The current alignment system is intentionally vague and simple. Chaotic Good is a general category of people who generally promote good, but are willing to work outside the law in some way to do so.

A noble thief who steals from the rich and gives to the poor might be chaotic good, and so might the pompous elf prince who fights for the good of his people, but believes himself above the law. You are mixing alignment with personality, and while the two can often be similar, they are not one and the same.

If I am a liar, that is part of my personality, not my alignment. It is HOW I lie that matters. Let's take your example of the [supposedly] Chaotic Good Bard who deceives people into doing right. Now, he may have good intentions, and he may be mostly true to those intentions, but to determine his exact alignment, you have to look at things more closely. When he manipulates people, he is showing contempt for them. While he may have convinced himself that it is acceptable if it helps the greater good, that doesn't make it so. His jaded perception of good and evil actually brings him a step closer to neutral. At this point I place him as Chaotic Good with Neutral tendencies. Now, you have to examine how he manipulates people. If he is actively putting them in harms way in order to achieve his goals, he has landed himself squarely in Chaotic Neutral territory. He has good tendencies sure, because he works for the cause of good, but he is potentially harming innocent people in doing so.

The alignment system is vague in a wonderful way. I would rather meet two Lawful Evil villains who could not behave more differently than one villain who is a Methodical-Sadistic-Paragon and one who is a Lawful-Pathological-Evil. When I see Lawful Evil, I can still be surprised by the specific details of a character, but when I see "Methodical-Sadistic-Paragon" I know exactly what to expect, and I believe that takes away all the beauty of a simplistic system.

hamishspence
2010-11-06, 03:23 PM
If I am a liar, that is part of my personality, not my alignment. It is HOW I lie that matters. Let's take your example of the [supposedly] Chaotic Good Bard who deceives people into doing right. Now, he may have good intentions, and he may be mostly true to those intentions, but to determine his exact alignment, you have to look at things more closely. When he manipulates people, he is showing contempt for them. While he may have convinced himself that it is acceptable if it helps the greater good, that doesn't make it so. His jaded perception of good and evil actually brings him a step closer to neutral. At this point I place him as Chaotic Good with Neutral tendencies.

BoVD phrases it as:


Lying is not necessarily an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends. Lying is so easy to use for evil purposes that most knightly codes and the creeds of many good religions forbid it altogether.

So, it isn't always a step away from strongly Good aligned.

Epsilon Rose
2010-11-06, 04:25 PM
I would like to draw issue with the empathy and honor scales.

Empathy seems to be mixing up good/evil and empathic/sociopathic. For example an incredibly evil character could also be an incredibly empathic one, becoming all the more twisted and perverse for knowing exactly what to say and exactly what to do to cause the most pain. Conversely a character could be incredibly sociopathic with absolutely know understanding of other peoples feelings but still incredibly good by forcing people or communities into unpleasant situations that will have a quantitatively good outcome. It's also worth noting that any good strategist (morally upright or repugnant) must have some degree of empathy since if they can't get inside their opponent's head they won't be able to devise good strategies or figure out what they have to prepare for.

Similarly you're integrity scale seems to be mixing honor and honesty. It is perfectly possible to have a moral code that doesn't include honesty and an honest person who completely lacks honor.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-11-16, 01:33 AM
I think the problem inherent in your system is a general misinterpretation of the standard alignments.
...
You are mixing alignment with personality, and while the two can often be similar, they are not one and the same.
Actually, I'm purposefully changing it from a general 'alignment' system to a more complex personality system. The reason being that alignment is something which exists only in role-playing games, not in real life, nor even in novels and films; the two main sources of inspiration for roleplaying games. Even novels set in dedicated RPG worlds very rarely touch upon the subject of alignment, and when they do, it's almost inevitably personality or an honor system that they actually refer to.


For example an incredibly evil character could also be an incredibly empathic one, becoming all the more twisted and perverse for knowing exactly what to say and exactly what to do to cause the most pain.
That's not exactly true... Antisocial Personality Disorder (known commonly as sociopathy and generally held to be closely related to "evil" personality traits) is defined as a pathological inability to empathize with others. Knowing how to manipulate people and empathizing aren't the same thing. Someone who empathizes would -by definition- feel the pain they caused others, and so would avoid causing others pain. Usually. On the other hand, sociopaths (Ted Bundy being a perfect example) are often quite adept at manipulating people's emotions, not because they empathize with them, but because they have developed an academic understanding of emotions. Some high-functioning people with Asperger's Syndrome do much the same thing, developing an academic understanding of emotions to compensate for an inability to effectively empathize (which is very different from a sociopath's inability).

I avoided a good/evil axis (at one point, I though to include a "Morality" axis, but decided not to) precisely because some very masochistic people thrive on the drama of personal conflict, without any particular lack of empathy. It is their ability to empathize which causes them to subconsciously cause others pain, so they can experience it themselves. Of course, these people usually do not intentionally cause pain to others, and have a strong tendency to have highly disordered thought patterns (in terms of the system I presented, this means one of the first few choices under Mental Structure.)


To both posters who I responded to:
Don't take my disagreement as a lack of appreciation for your comments. Although I argue, I posted this precisely so that I can get an idea of how people would react to it, and though I disagree, your comments help me figure out how best to modify my system to make it work as best as it can. If anyone bears misconceptions about it, I need to make changes to ensure that it's all clearer. I'll post a revised version as soon as I can make the changes I've decided on since reading everyone's comments.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-12-02, 02:04 PM
Sorry to bump this old thread, but I was reading the strip 762 and just had to say how nice it would be to think that this thread inspired Rich.


But I'm not arrogant enough to think that's actually the case. If he's even read this thread, he probably would have some critiquing to do, as well, which is just as good. I can't fix a broken system if I don't know what's broken about it.

hamishspence
2010-12-02, 02:12 PM
Given that there's no Good, only Righteous, I'd suggest that there should be no Evil- only Malevolent.

It helps to avoid asymmetry.

I can live with Lawful and Chaotic though.

BigDumbWeirdo
2010-12-02, 06:01 PM
Given that there's no Good, only Righteous, I'd suggest that there should be no Evil- only Malevolent.

It helps to avoid asymmetry.

I can live with Lawful and Chaotic though.

Good idea, and noted.