So, how would you do a third alignment axis?

[Aasimar]

I was just thinking, what if we wanted to add a third dimension to the Alignment system, turning the whole thing into a cube?

Personally, I'd call the third axis 'Dedication' or 'Activity/Apathy' or something along those lines.

So, a person might be an Active Lawful Good, in the vein of paladins or such, basing their life around promoting goodness and lawfulness. Or an Apathetic Lawful Good, where, when pushed, make lawful and good choices, but for the most part just want to get on with their lives and don't go on crusades unless press ganged into it by, say, a wizard and a gaggle of dwarfs who show up around tea-time.

So, an Active True Neutral is the type who believes in Neutrality and actively works to make sure none of the forces of evil, good law or chaos don't gain an upper hand, while an Apathetic True Neutral character simply has no opinion on the whole thing.

I realize this is an entirely unnecessary addition, as such...so I'm just proposing it as a thought experiment.

Clearly, a lazy apathetic Chaotic Evil person may be a ****, but he probably won't go out and set the town on fire.

Of course, we run into problems of truly dedicated True Neutrals also wanting to pursue a balance between activity and apathy.

[NichG]

There are a number of choices you could use for a third axis:

I like the idea of Idealist vs Pragmatist. A Lawful Evil Idealist feels that it is important to push the ideas of Law and Evil for their own sake, whereas a Lawful Evil Pragmatist just wants to have order and exploit it for personal gain regardless of what it does to others.

Instead of Idealist I might call it 'Canonical' or 'Technical' or something, but Idealist feels like a more natural word to use there.

The main problem with it is that its kind of subservient to the other two alignments. Its hard to imagine someone who thinks that 'Idealism' is more important than what you're idealistic about, though I guess you could do it.

A better choice for a third axis might be something that is totally orthogonal to the other alignments, rather than modifying or helping to specify someone's relationship to them. How about something that refers to how a person deals with the unknown or novel? Something like 'Wonder' vs 'Wariness' (kind of like pessimist/optimist).

A 'Wonder' character sees new things as opportunities, things to explore, things to exploit, whatever. A Cthulhu cultist is a 'Wonder' character, as is an explorer, scientist, wizard who wants to uncover the secrets of ancient generations, etc.

A 'Wariness' character sees new or unknown things as dangerous threats: the unknown is horrifying, unpleasant, dangerous, insidious, or simply worthless. Find a book of hidden knowledge from the past? Whatever secrets it has are too dangerous to release on the world, we'd better bury it. Found a way to resurrect the dead? It goes against the natural order, better not do it. See a strange symbol on the wall that makes reality turn purple? Don't look at it, and in fact, brick it up and drink until you forget where it was.

[The Random NPC]

An apathetic Lawful Good character would be a Neutral character with Lawful Good tendencies in the current alignment system. If you add a third axis, it should be something that can't be reasonably approximated by the current system.

[limejuicepowder]

I was just thinking, what if we wanted to add a third dimension to the Alignment system, turning the whole thing into a cube?

Personally, I'd call the third axis 'Dedication' or 'Activity/Apathy' or something along those lines.

So, a person might be an Active Lawful Good, in the vein of paladins or such, basing their life around promoting goodness and lawfulness. Or an Apathetic Lawful Good, where, when pushed, make lawful and good choices, but for the most part just want to get on with their lives and don't go on crusades unless press ganged into it by, say, a wizard and a gaggle of dwarfs who show up around tea-time.

So, an Active True Neutral is the type who believes in Neutrality and actively works to make sure none of the forces of evil, good law or chaos don't gain an upper hand, while an Apathetic True Neutral character simply has no opinion on the whole thing.

I realize this is an entirely unnecessary addition, as such...so I'm just proposing it as a thought experiment.

Clearly, a lazy apathetic Chaotic Evil person may be a ****, but he probably won't go out and set the town on fire.

Of course, we run into problems of truly dedicated True Neutrals also wanting to pursue a balance between activity and apathy.

I actually really like the "active/passive" idea, as it really helps flesh out the alignments in general. It would basically be used to measure the degree a person will go out of their way to do something. By this standard, an average person would be most accurately described with a 0 on each axis (with maybe a slight tilt toward good and law): most people after all will do good deeds if it comes up, and empathize on a superficial level with other's suffering. The average man is also likely to perform non-good acts when they come up, especially when no one is watching. Ultimately, they are more concerned with their own life and the lives of people close to them. This to me is pretty neutral.

However, I don't think a more active person should be described as more principled (i.e., acting a certain way for the sake of the idea of acting that way). This to has more to do with specific back story, as it describes the reason(s) they act they way they do - alignment should only be a guide to the face value of a character's actions.

[Duke of URL]

Obligatory self-reference: http://www.victoriouspress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=511

Summary: While the article is written primarily as a guide to using alignment as a character development tool, it also has some potential application as a mechanical system. Don't think of alignment as just 9 discrete points, it's more of a continuum -- how dedicated to each alignment principle are you? There's a big difference between two LG characters if one is predominantly lawful and only nominally good, and the other is predominantly good and only nominally lawful. For neutrality, is it an active balance or apathy?

[Wonton]

I really like the idea - one of the biggest problems I've always had with the alignment system is the fact that it's difficult to differentiate between the average True Neutral "I spend my time worrying about my daily life instead of good/evil" commoner and the True Neutral "I seek perfect harmony in all things, making sure the scales of good/evil and law/chaos are always balanced" druid.

Though, assuming this 3rd axis has a neutral position as well, what would be the difference between Apathetic Neutral Neutral and Neutral Neutral Neutral?

P.S. In case he doesn't post about it in this thread, you should also check out sonofzeal's Expanded Alignment System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205), which turns the 3x3 matrix into a 5x5 matrix. That's the other problem I have with the standard system - it's binary. If you want to play a LG character you are automatically as lawful and as good as unicorns and paladins. His system actually makes it so that there's some sort of law/chaos and good/evil SCALE, where you can be lightly aligned or heavily committed to your alignment.

[Siosilvar]

The third alignment axis is funky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828).

[Telonius]

The third alignment axis is funky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828).

Beat me to it. I've found this covers most character concepts pretty well.

[TypoNinja]

I like the active/passive scale, it formalizes something we kind of just fudge anyway.

Though I think an internal/external companion axis might be more appropriate.

For example, a Paladin externalizes his alignment, going out to right wrongs, battle evil, convert followers to his faith. All the external manifestations of goodness and law.

A LG monk though, might sit in his monastery, doing little until circumstances forced his hand, even then the monk internalizes his alignment. The Law he values is the iron discipline of his mind and body, his goodness is in that he will help those in need who come to him, but feels little need to go out and seek those who need him.

These are of course two extremes, logically we'd end up with an alignment like LG/EE and LG/II or LEGE and LIGI, however you decide to notate it since it gives room for things like someone who is LG and overtly Good, but less so with the Law. So LIGE

[Ravens_cry]

Honourable/Dishonourable could be useful.
A persnickety and downright bureaucratic bureaucrat would be a different character from Lord who takes all his due, but also fulfils all his obligations to his vessels without fail.

[Yukitsu]

I find a jerk/nice axis is the one I most often want to add in addition to the others.

[SaintRidley]

The Axis of Funkitude is most excellent. I'm going to be borrowing that someday.

[nedz]

There is also the materialistic axis.

And the Life/Unlife axis.

I'm not sure that any of these additional axis are useful unless they provide character motivations. Could you have an active heaven opposing a passive heaven ?

[Tyndmyr]

I wouldn't. Frankly, the trouble for rewards payoff of the existing two alignments is already sketchy enough. I don't really need a third category of alignment based effects to track.

[Palanan]

I've never seen Kellus' funky thread before, and I loved it. I laughed harder than I have all week. (And considering the week, I really needed it.)

As for third axes in principle...I'm not a strict adherent to alignment theory, so I'm with Tyndmyr. That said, I really do like Ravens_cry's honorable/dishonorable notion.

(You could argue his particular example--the lord in question, on the face of it, seems lawful neutral--but I grok the broader sense and I like it.)

[grarrrg]

An apathetic Lawful Good character would be a Neutral character with Lawful Good tendencies in the current alignment system. If you add a third axis, it should be something that can't be reasonably approximated by the current system.

The current alignment system can't be reasonably approximated by the current alignment system...

[TuggyNE]

The current alignment system can't be reasonably approximated by the current alignment system...

OK, that is funny.

I've never been satisfied with any alignment system I've seen (sonofzeal's, Kellus', lord_gareth's, PHB, possibly others) or tried to come up with. There are always weird but significant corner cases that just don't fit; perhaps a good project would start by collecting a bunch of corner cases from such threads and dealing with them?

Anyway, one change I like to make is just to turn ethical Neutrality into Pragmatism, so that you have PE, LN, CG. The only real downside to this that I can see is that someone with an ideology of ethical neutrality that somehow isn't pragmatism isn't well-represented, but I'm not actually sure what sort of person that would be. (The main upside is clarifying the notation, so each position on each axis has a unique set of initials.)

[Loki_42]

You know, I actually found an interesting 3rd axis a while ago, back when I used to be on the Wizard's forums. Let me see if I can dig it up... Here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19554078/Alignment%5E3) it is. And here (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27641745/Third_Alignment_Axis_Redux) is a redux that he apparently did later that I like less than the original, but wins bonus points for citing Order of the Stick. The basic gist of the system was that there was a difference between people who exemplified the alignment and upheld it as a means to live, called Arch-whatever, and people who just were their alignment without giving it much thought, called Conditional-whatever. It can create some interesting characters, and is worth a quick read, at least.

[Doug Lampert]

I find a jerk/nice axis is the one I most often want to add in addition to the others.

That one works for me, the one I've thought would be useful is a "How do you treat your close associates" axis.

LE can be a scum who uses any means to advance himself as long as he holds to the letter of some code. Or it can be someone who's a racist bastard to "THEM" but quite nice and very reliable to others of "US". He can even act exactly like a LG character would as long as he's surrounded only by US.

Good can be fairly callous toward friends, with high standards for their behavior and few complements (see good is not nice), or it can be considerate and polite to friends and cooler toward strangers who haven't proven themselves and aren't in obvious desperate straights. Still other good characters will overlook almost anything if done by a good friend, convincing themselves that "he must have had a good reason" or "he was just joking, he didn't really mean that" or "he couldn't have done that", but a Paladin for example is supposed to have higher standards than that.

CE can have friends and loved ones, or it can have chronic backstabbing desease and routinely murder lovers and spouses or even children.

Basically, I see the STANDARD D&D alignments as being mostly about how you treat strangers, so how you treat allies is pretty open.

But the question I have with ANY of these is, "Why is this a cosmic force"?

Good and Evil, archetypical, good weapons and evil weapons both have places in fantasy. Law and Chaos, more questionable; but I can come up with at least 2 fantasy series where that's a major and magically important division.

Nice and not nice? Not so much. Alignment isn't supposed to be a complete character description. It's how do you interact with certain morally or ethically charged magics. Nice and Naughty is only really relevant if Santa Claus exists in your universe. And nice to friends tends to have its own rewards without needing magical empowerment.

So before adding an axis, I'd ask myself, WHY do I need another axis? ONE axis is actually enough for the vast majority of the things alignment is actually useful for, as a character description tool it's crap, it's there to key off magical interactions and defined in terms of ethics and morality because ethics and moralality matter for magical interactions.

[Zale]

I'm not merely Chaotic Good.

I'm Active Anarchic Funky Red Good!

Now, LET'S PUNCH EVIL SHARKS IN THE FACE! YEEEAH!

Dump all the alignment systems together.

What do you get?

[The Random NPC]

Some sort of 12th dimensional hyper cube chart?

[lsfreak]

One might be to differentiate Law and Chaos into Order/Spontaneity and whether one gets their moral code from an internal source or an external source. The two are often mixed up, I've especially seen anyone with any kind of consistent moral code labeled Lawful. Though this might be simple enough by just sticking to two axises and renaming Law/Chaos into something less likely to be interpreted as "random."

A better one might be Dogmatic/Openminded. Paladins are going to be dogmatically Lawful Good - they actively attempt to live by this alignment, constantly striving to fit its description. A rogue might be openmindedly Chaotic Good - they simply act in such a way that is Chaotic Good, and changes in their lives are more likely to alter their alignment to Neutral Good or Chaotic Neutral.

Another possibility - probably not an axis, per say - is to describe which one is central. For example, a paladin is going to be equally Lawful and Good. I, on the other hand, am more centrally Good (Neutral tendencies), and those beliefs lead me by chance towards a strong level of Chaos as well. A freedom fighter will likely be strongly Chaotic, and their beliefs about what exactly that means will lead them by chance towards Good or Evil. In this way, a paladin may well fall because they find Law more important than Good, and they end up twisted into a blackguard as a result (or find that Good is more important than Law, and fall in that way).

EDIT: I suppose these are all less axises, and more further description of the existing ones. Oops.

[Spuddles]

I sometimes expand the axes to include axiomatic, vile, exalted, and anarchic to properly represent those that exemplify their ideals, like the Balor lords responsible for martialing troops in the Blood War or the Saints of Heironeous that lead the Great Crusade.

[TuggyNE]

But the question I have with ANY of these is, "Why is this a cosmic force"?

Good and Evil, archetypical, good weapons and evil weapons both have places in fantasy. Law and Chaos, more questionable; but I can come up with at least 2 fantasy series where that's a major and magically important division.

Nice and not nice? Not so much. Alignment isn't supposed to be a complete character description. It's how do you interact with certain morally or ethically charged magics. Nice and Naughty is only really relevant if Santa Claus exists in your universe. And nice to friends tends to have its own rewards without needing magical empowerment.

So before adding an axis, I'd ask myself, WHY do I need another axis? ONE axis is actually enough for the vast majority of the things alignment is actually useful for, as a character description tool it's crap, it's there to key off magical interactions and defined in terms of ethics and morality because ethics and moralality matter for magical interactions.

A very good point. I've always had a little trouble with Law/Chaos for this reason (and also the idea of True Neutrality as some kind of stance to take); neither resonates with me as much as Good/Evil, and it's extremely difficult to justify additional magical effects, Outer Planes, and so on for ... Funky. Or Active. Or whatever.

[Zale]

A very good point. I've always had a little trouble with Law/Chaos for this reason (and also the idea of True Neutrality as some kind of stance to take); neither resonates with me as much as Good/Evil, and it's extremely difficult to justify additional magical effects, Outer Planes, and so on for ... Funky. Or Active. Or whatever.

A Passive Evil Plane will be a place of dangers and horribleness that you may happen upon.

A Active Evil Plane will foist suffering upon you while cackling manically.

[Duke of URL]

A very good point. I've always had a little trouble with Law/Chaos for this reason (and also the idea of True Neutrality as some kind of stance to take); neither resonates with me as much as Good/Evi

I've always had in the back of my mind the idea for a campaign setting where the main conflict lines were drawn on the law/chaos axis, rather than good/evil. Sadly, I have at least four other projects -- three of them major -- under way that pushes that idea to behind the back burner.

[nedz]

You can view the I Ching as a bianarised eight dimensional character descriptor, though two of those dimensions are age and gender.
Its a bit simplistic though.
YMMV

[eggs]

Step 1: Make every descriptor in the dictionary its own axis, from <Adjective> to "<Antonym>.
Step 2: Have players write down any adjectives that apply.
Step 3: Make every one of those adjectives have a meaningful mechanical effect.

The trick is to avoid Step 4, which is recognizing that you've just reinvented Fate. :smalltongue:

[Inglenook]

The Elric Saga was based primarily on the Law/Chaos axis, I think, with both sides being morally grey.

I'm not a big fan of alignment in general, but the arch/null axis is pretty interesting as a thought experiment.

[nedz]

Step 1: Make every descriptor in the dictionary its own axis, from <Adjective> to "<Antonym>.
Step 2: Have players write down any adjectives that apply.
Step 3: Make every one of those adjectives have a meaningful mechanical effect.

The trick is to avoid Step 4, which is recognizing that you've just reinvented Fate. :smalltongue:

The book you're thinking of is Roget's Thesaurus not a Dictionary. RT has a complete list of Synonyms and Antonyms.:smalltongue:

[grarrrg]

I'm sort of surprised no one has mentioned "Sane/Insane" yet.
Sanity is one of the few things that is NOT covered by either the Alignment system or Attributes.

Quick defense of my last statement:
As far as Law/Chaos goes, Chaotic is NOT necessarily Insane. Take the 'classic' trope of "The Guy who thinks he is Napoleon (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NapoleonDelusion)".
He is definitely Insane, as he is NOT Napoleon. And probably not Emperor/General material either. He might be French though.
BUT he may be perfectly Lawful, acting in a way that Napoleon would act, making rational decisions and such. Well, rational from the point of view that he is really Napoleon anyway.
Also, you can be perfectly Sane, and yet very Chaotic.


The Lawful Dumb Paladin would actually be Lawful Good Insane.
The Chaotic Evil Assassin-type may very well be C-E-Sane, he just likes killing people.





Also, if ANYONE can come up with an alignment system that can unquestionably peg down Rorschach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_%28comics%29) (withOUT being insanely complicated), then you are indeed a god among men.

P.S. Rorschach is Lawful Good.

[Zale]

That's easy.

He's [Redacted] [Redacted].

[Rejakor]

Bananaphone Quartzite Exothermal.


How would I 'do' a third alignment axis? I wouldn't.

I'd let the goddamn players play their goddamn characters as goddamn people instead of goddamn cardboard cutouts.

[eggs]

I'd let the goddamn players play their goddamn characters as goddamn people instead of goddamn cardboard cutouts.
The Goddamn Cardboard Cutout - Goddamn People axis has potential, but it's really going to need a catchier name.

[grarrrg]

OH!

Had another idea today. One that actually ELIMINATES a problem with the current system!

Axis 1: Good/Evil
Axis 2: Order/Chaos
Axis 3: Lawful/Anarchy

Good/Evil is (fairly) easy to distinguish.
But LOTS of people have problem with Law/Chaos due to the fact that it isn't clear if it is "internal" or "external". This would mostly solve that.
Order/Chaos is for internal thought.
Law/Anarchy is for external actions.
Due to this, the Law/Anarchy alignment could very well change based entirely on where you travel, depending on the local laws/customs.


Paladins would still be Lawful/Good, but Law is now clearly in favor of actual laws. Order/Chaos would determine how they acted. The Chaos Paladin would be the overzealous "THEY DETECT AS EVIL KILL THEM!!!" type. The Order Paladin would be more restrained.

[Grytorm]

...
A better choice for a third axis might be something that is totally orthogonal to the other alignments, rather than modifying or helping to specify someone's relationship to them. How about something that refers to how a person deals with the unknown or novel? Something like 'Wonder' vs 'Wariness' (kind of like pessimist/optimist).

A 'Wonder' character sees new things as opportunities, things to explore, things to exploit, whatever. A Cthulhu cultist is a 'Wonder' character, as is an explorer, scientist, wizard who wants to uncover the secrets of ancient generations, etc.

A 'Wariness' character sees new or unknown things as dangerous threats: the unknown is horrifying, unpleasant, dangerous, insidious, or simply worthless. Find a book of hidden knowledge from the past? Whatever secrets it has are too dangerous to release on the world, we'd better bury it. Found a way to resurrect the dead? It goes against the natural order, better not do it. See a strange symbol on the wall that makes reality turn purple? Don't look at it, and in fact, brick it up and drink until you forget where it was.

I think that this might be the best one I have seen in this thread. It is the kind of thing that could ideologically be an actual faction.

[Agrippa]

How about light and dark as a distinct axis from good and evil? For Dark Good you'd get Batman, Det. Hartigan, Hellboy, Nightcrawler and Raven. Light Good would include Superman, arguably Captain America, Luke Skywalker, Amaterasu and the Green, Blue, Indigo and some members of the Star Sapphire Corps. Then of course you have those who are neutral along the Light/Dark axis. I'm not sure what to call them.

[Empedocles]

Also, if ANYONE can come up with an alignment system that can unquestionably peg down Rorschach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_%28comics%29) (withOUT being insanely complicated), then you are indeed a god among men.


http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/i-see-what-you-did-there-261.jpg?w=500&h=535

[Synovia]

An apathetic Lawful Good character would be a Neutral character with Lawful Good tendencies in the current alignment system..



This isn't true at all.


Lawful doesn't mean the player is a cop. It doesn't even mean he follows the law. It means he's ordered, and reasoned. It means he follows some sort of code.

You can be apathetic and still follow a code.

[Rejakor]

Rorschach is Lawful Evil. He's impulsive, and goes out of his way to cause others harm due to paranoia, distrust, and massive psychological trauma. That would normally be Chaotic, but he has an iron code that he follows to the absolute letter. That code is evil, but he is entirely unswayable about following it, so that puts him deep into the Lawful ballpark.

I'll put the Goddamn alignment system on my to-do list next to the Goddamn line of core melee replacement classes.

[Lord_Gareth]

Also, if ANYONE can come up with an alignment system that can unquestionably peg down Rorschach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_%28comics%29) (withOUT being insanely complicated), then you are indeed a god among men.

P.S. Rorschach is Lawful Good.

He's a serial killing sociopath whose only recognizable emotions are hatred and paranoid fear who despises those he 'protects' and routinely engages in torture and murder. He both flagrantly violates the law and has no respect for lawful authority or those who uphold it, murderously assaults the SWAT team sent to secure him, and attempts to condemn billions of innocents to death and war rather than compromise his absolutist principles.

Comments like, "Rorschach is Lawful Good" are the reason that Alan Moore regrets having ever written Rorshach.

[Synovia]

The Lawful Dumb Paladin would actually be Lawful Good Insane.
The Chaotic Evil Assassin-type may very well be C-E-Sane, he just likes killing people.


How could an assassin be chaotic? They're killers for hire, and do most of what they do based on contractual terms.

I would think a chaotic assasin would just be a serial killer who is occasionally hireable, but might kill you for hiring him.


He both flagrantly violates the law and has no respect for lawful authority or those who uphold it, murderously assaults the SWAT team sent to secure him, and attempts to condemn billions of innocents to death and war rather than compromise his absolutist principles.
.

I still maintain that the worst decision D&D made with regards to alignment is the actual words they used, which are entirely too charged. A character can have absolute disdain for the law, and authority, and still be lawful under D&D's description.

Rorsharch, is most certainly lawful, and for exactly the reason you state above: his code is more important than anything else. His dominant trait is LAW.

[Palanan]

As another suggestion for the OP, there's always Introvert/Extrovert. Dunno how this would interact with the other axes, but it has powerful effects on both cultures and individuals.

[Lord_Gareth]

Or you could skip adding a third axis to an already ill-defined system and move to a different alignment system. D20 Modern had a really great one, and there's always the color wheel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174163) for M:tG fans.

[hamishspence]

How could an assassin be chaotic? They're killers for hire, and do most of what they do based on contractual terms.

I would think a chaotic assasin would just be a serial killer who is occasionally hireable, but might kill you for hiring him.

Or possibly an Evil Anarchist with a day job.

Goal- spread as much Chaos as possible.

Method of getting the resources needed- taking money for assassination jobs.

"Assassin" is one of the demonic archetypes in Fiendish Codex 1, after all.

[grarrrg]

Rorschach is Lawful Evil. He's impulsive, and goes out of his way to cause others harm due to paranoia, distrust, and massive psychological trauma. That would normally be Chaotic, but he has an iron code that he follows to the absolute letter. That code is evil, but he is entirely unswayable about following it, so that puts him deep into the Lawful ballpark.


Rorsharch, is most certainly lawful, and for exactly the reason you state above: his code is more important than anything else. His dominant trait is LAW.


He's a serial killing sociopath whose only recognizable emotions are hatred and paranoid fear who despises those he 'protects' and routinely engages in torture and murder. He both flagrantly violates the law and has no respect for lawful authority or those who uphold it, murderously assaults the SWAT team sent to secure him, and attempts to condemn billions of innocents to death and war rather than compromise his absolutist principles.

I may not convince you, but I will sure as heck try...
(note: this is more or less a REpost (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9779189#post9779189) of something I wrote up *checks date* WOW November 2010)

Now, the first thing you MUST take note of is that in order to Align in Dnd you must follow DnD.
We are NOT Aligning by 'real world' or 'comic book world' rules, we are Aligning by DnD rules.
We shall dispense with the easiest part first. Lawful.

EvilDMMk3 summed it up nicely:

Lawful means following a code, be it a personal code, a codified discipline or the laws of the land....I can see good arguments for both Nite-Owl and Rorshach both being Lawful, albeit with very different codes. Rorshach has very strict internal rules, he displays loyalty and has a deep dedication to Justice, at least his own version of it.

Definitions of Lawful Alignment include Logical and Predictable. Rorschach is definately logical and methodical, remember the beginning when he went over every inch of the Comedian's place just to make sure he didn't miss ANYTHING?
He's also fairly predictable, not from moment to moment, but in general, you know his motivations, how he'll (generally) react to most situations, that sort of thing.
Rorshach is Lawful.


Good? or Not-quite-so-Good? That is the question.
From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil)

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.

Rorshach does not kill innocents. He does not kill for profit (he might consider it fun, but that isn't the main motivation). He has a respect for life and makes many personal sacrifices (he is more-or-less homeless).
He does hurt and kill others, but only those who deserve it. He does not kill because it is convenient. He kills to put a definite end to evil.

Further down the SRD...

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Rorshach is.. well, read the above and tell me what part he DOESN'T fit.
Of special note is "Speaks out against injustice...hates to see the guilty go unpunished". Now, why did Rorshach die again? A great injustice that will go unpunished.

Now remember, we are using DnD morality, NOT real world. In real world you kill 1 person (intentionally, not self-defense) and you're evil. In Dnd, PCs kill evil people (and a fair lot of non-good) all the time, and it's EXPECTED of them, they are PRAISED for it.

It's also been said that most Dnd characters are basically 'violent hobos'.
Including the Good Aligned characters.
Sometimes ESPECIALLY the Good Aligned characters.
Rorshach is very much a Violent Hobo.


Now, to more specifically address certain things.

He's a serial killing sociopath
Granted. But using DnD logic, this is perfectly acceptable.


whose only recognizable emotions are hatred and paranoid fear
Doesn't matter for purposes of Alignment.


who despises those he 'protects' and routinely engages in torture and murder.
He despises them because they don't DO anything, thus they REQUIRE protection.
"Routinely" is up for debate, but he only hurts those who have greatly wronged others.


He both flagrantly violates the law and has no respect for lawful authority or those who uphold it, murderously assaults the SWAT team sent to secure him
He ignores "the law" because they aren't doing enough to stop the REAL bad guys.
The SWAT team I will partially give credit for, although in his mind, he was surrounded and getting captured was NOT an option, so he 'had' to fight.


attempts to condemn billions of innocents to death and war rather than compromise his absolutist principles.
When did he condemn them?
The options were either

"life goes on as normal and 'maybe' the world Nukes itself into oblivion, and 'maybe' things turn out (mostly) OK for (almost) everybody".
OR
"Millions of people WILL die, so that slightly more millions of people WON'T die."

Rorschach does NOT have control of a Nuclear arsenal, so he has little say in the first one, and he had no way to know of, let alone stop the second.
His MAIN concern at the end was that 'The Villain', who was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the deaths of TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, would go COMPLETELY UNPUNISHED for it.
And even _if_ the world found out about 'the ruse' that killed MILLIONS, it would just have reverted to the first option above and be no worse off (well, minus a few MILLION people, but you know...).

Final score (to me at least):
Rorschach is a 'Good' guy, with flawed methods.
At worst he is 'Neutral'.

[Zale]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/904/Alignment.jpg

It all boils down to that, more or less.

[hamishspence]

"Routinely" is up for debate, but he only hurts those who have greatly wronged others.

How have the people whose fingers he breaks for info "greatly wronged others" and how does he know that?

[Lord_Gareth]

How have the people whose fingers he breaks for info "greatly wronged others" and how does he know that?

On top of this, Rorshach has a long history of killing those who have surrendered to him instead of turning them over to a lawful authority. His actions display no respect for the lives of his enemies ("Never disposed of sewage with toilet before. Obvious, really.") and little more for his supposed friends and allies. He assaulted Moloch without provocation based on a thin theory and tortured him for information - this while Moloch was a senior friggin' citizen, mind - and, again, displayed no qualms at blowing Adrian's plan wide open to satisfy his own absolutist principles.

Rorshach isn't good-aligned. I'll stretch for lawful, maybe, but his behavior and attitude suggests an utter contempt for his fellow human being that expresses itself through murder, and he soothes his own tormented soul by choosing targets he feels can be safely condemned (never mind that he lumps "liberals" "intellectuals" "politicians" and "whores" in with murderers, child molesters, and psychopaths as being equally foul). He makes no distinction between types of criminal, has no gradient to his behavior, no mercy, and no regard for either the lives or the dignity of sapient beings.

[TypoNinja]

On top of this, Rorshach has a long history of killing those who have surrendered to him instead of turning them over to a lawful authority. His actions display no respect for the lives of his enemies ("Never disposed of sewage with toilet before. Obvious, really.") and little more for his supposed friends and allies. He assaulted Moloch without provocation based on a thin theory and tortured him for information - this while Moloch was a senior friggin' citizen, mind - and, again, displayed no qualms at blowing Adrian's plan wide open to satisfy his own absolutist principles.

Rorshach isn't good-aligned. I'll stretch for lawful, maybe, but his behavior and attitude suggests an utter contempt for his fellow human being that expresses itself through murder, and he soothes his own tormented soul by choosing targets he feels can be safely condemned (never mind that he lumps "liberals" "intellectuals" "politicians" and "whores" in with murderers, child molesters, and psychopaths as being equally foul). He makes no distinction between types of criminal, has no gradient to his behavior, no mercy, and no regard for either the lives or the dignity of sapient beings.

Like most vigilantes he does not trust traditional authority to solve the problem, otherwise he wouldn't be a vigilante in the first place.

Lacking the resources to build his own prison the only real option he has left is killing the bad people he encounters.

Think of it as his own personal crusade, he's not killing because it's fun, or he's bored. He aims for the bad people. Granted he's not shy about doing horrible things to bad people, but there's a very solid line, only the bad people.

And his code is Iron, Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon. Or something to that effect, the exact words escape me.

Law I think we can all agree on, the question is Neutral or Good (Since hes not evil).

Given his death I'd have to say Good. He wanted the conspiracy exposed, the mass murderer caught, could not stand to stay silent. Neutral would, if not agreed with the plan, would not have rejected it so utterly once presented with it as a completed act.

[grarrrg]

How have the people whose fingers he breaks for info "greatly wronged others" and how does he know that?

Ok, He does routinely break fingers of low-level scum in dive bars in attempts to gain information so he can do worse than break the fingers of high-level scum.
Which actually leads me into...


On top of this, Rorshach has a long history of killing those who have surrendered to him instead of turning them over to a lawful authority. His actions display no respect for the lives of his enemies ("Never disposed of sewage with toilet before. Obvious, really.") and little more for his supposed friends and allies. He assaulted Moloch without provocation based on a thin theory and tortured him for information - this while Moloch was a senior friggin' citizen, mind - and, again, displayed no qualms at blowing Adrian's plan wide open to satisfy his own absolutist principles.

Before I start, I must again remind people that we are doing Rorschach with regards to DnD alignment. The Real World does NOT factor in (neither does The Real World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_World) for that matter...).

Rorschach is a HUGE believer in Black/White morality. You are either Evil or Good, there is no in between. And he either considers himself 'White' by reason of being opposed to the 'Black', or he (somehow) thinks himself as being outside of the system, and therefore not subject to Black OR White. This does NOT mean he thinks himself "Gray", this means he doesn't even consider himself at all.

As I stated before, he has NO respect for the police, and does NOT trust them to do an adequate job. And as TypoNinja pointed out, he's not capable of running his own prison, so killing/wounding is his main option.

I agree that he "display no respect for the lives of his enemies".
Why should he? Most of the time he tries to go after the 'big scum', that DON'T deserve to be around (I admit only 'most' of the time and 'tries' to go after).
Yes, he did kill that one crazy guy by dropping him down the elevator shaft, but that crazy guy WAS FRIGGIN CRAZY. He WANTED to get beaten up by people, he LIKED getting beaten up. There was pretty much only one way that situation could wind up....Crazy Guy starts commuting ACTUAL MAJOR CRIMES. Rorschach jumped the gun, but the result would have eventually been the same.

As for beating up Moloch, 'senior citizen' or not, we ARE talking about a (former) Major Criminal here, that WAS (tangentially) involved in some shady business. Going back to Rorschach's Black/White morality, Moloch is/was still firmly on the 'Black' side of things.

[Lord_Gareth]

As for beating up Moloch, 'senior citizen' or not, we ARE talking about a (former) Major Criminal here, that WAS (tangentially) involved in some shady business. Going back to Rorschach's Black/White morality, Moloch is/was still firmly on the 'Black' side of things.

And while that justifies it in Rorshach's mind, it doesn't justify it in terms of D&D morality. Simply being evil-aligned or having committed past sins is not enough to justify killing a being (BoED) and torture is always an evil act, no matter who it's directed against (pretty much every book that talks about alignment mentions this one). It doesn't matter that Rorshach "only" tortures low-level scum. The fact remains that he's a serial torturer, and serial murderer to boot.

The biggest parts of the definition of Good alignment is "respect for the life and dignity of sapient beings." BoED (and other books!) clarified this to include the life and dignity of even one's enemies. Rorshach respects neither, for his enemies or his allies (remember his comment about Silhouette's death?) and actively shames and humiliates his foes while he's hurting them and after he kills them.

Yes, violence is a fact of life in the D&D universe and good-aligned characters do kill, but Rorschach's methods are utterly beyond the pale, and he demonstrates it over and over again. His murder of Captain Carnage. Assaulting the SWAT officers. Burning that prisoner's face with cooking fat. The obvious sadism of his retaliation against Big Figure and his goons - and, mind you, he stopped to murder Big Figure when he could have simply left him in prison. Just because it's justified in Rorshach's mind doesn't mean it's justified morally or in terms of D&D's alignment system - especially not Captain Carnage, who was a sick man in need of treatment, not callous slaughter.

[willpell]

I came up with a third alignment axis a while ago on the Wotco boards; it distinguishes between Arch-alignments, who are massively committed to the alignment as a principle, and individuals who are more nuanced and default to the alignment (I'm unsatisfied with my original term for the opposite of Arch and so am leaving it unidentified for now). A paladin or an angel would be Arch-Lawgood, while someone more like Roy would be on the other end of the spectrum. Both are Lawful and both are Good, but the Arch one upholds Lawfulness and Goodness as ends unto themselves, while the non-Arch simply tries to respect tradition and be kind to others.



P.S. Rorschach is Lawful Good.

Rorschach isn't even remotely Good. He *thinks* he is, but that doesn't prove anything. Caring about a Good principle doesn't make you Good yourself, any more than stealing the Constitution and take it home with you "for safekeeping" would make you a patriot. Being Good requires actually *behaving* in a Good fashion. Rorschach obeys his personal set of rules no matter what the cost or benefit to anyone else. He is Lawful Neutral (Arch Lawful Neutral according to my embryonic third axis, while a character who just tries to get along in a social structure would be non-Arch).


It all boils down to that, more or less.

No, it really doesn't. Good is Not Nice, and Evil can be; meanwhile the Chaotic may well play by rules, it's just that the rules in question are made up by them and can change on the fly.

[Zale]

No, it really doesn't. Good is Not Nice, and Evil can be; meanwhile the Chaotic may well play by rules, it's just that the rules in question are made up by them and can change on the fly.

It may as well.

That statement makes as much sense about alignments as any other.

I mean, who would have though you couldn't fit any given person into one of nine possible alignments?

[panaikhan]

I mean, who would have though you couldn't fit any given person into one of nine possible alignments?

You can fit Batman into all of them. I've seen the picture. :smalltongue:

[willpell]

There's really no justification for most of those though. Certainly not for Chaotic Evil, where the best they could come up with was "didn't let someone finish their ice cream".

[The Random NPC]

There's really no justification for most of those though. Certainly not for Chaotic Evil, where the best they could come up with was "didn't let someone finish their ice cream".

That's misleading, he kicked a guy in the back of the head so he wouldn't finish their ice cream.

[Lord_Gareth]

That's misleading, he kicked a guy in the back of the head so he wouldn't finish their ice cream.

Their poisoned ice cream, I might add.

[The Random NPC]

I was unaware of that, but there was still a better way of stopping him. He could have just whipped out his ice cream repellent or something

[grarrrg]

I was unaware of that, but there was still a better way of stopping him. He could have just whipped out his Ice-Cream Repellent Bat-Spray or something

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

[Fitz10019]

For me a possible third axis would be worldview, narrow (himself or his immediate surroundings) v. universal (everything). This can explain why a Lawful Good king does not bother to go to war against his neighboring country which has an aggressive slave trade. His worldview is limited to his realm, and issues beyond his borders do not get his dander up.

This axis could be very handy for character development, as the scope of a PC's worldview can evolve over time without feeling like you've changed the character from Neutral Good (or whatever). A young idealist out to rid the world of injustice can be whittled down over the course of a campaign to a jaded hero whose theater of involvement is limited to the reach of his sword.

[willpell]

For me a possible third axis would be worldview, narrow (himself or his immediate surroundings) v. universal (everything).

IMO this is too narrow to be an alignment, it's just a personality trait. An alignment should be more cosmic, something that affects not just how one person sees the world, but polarizes all people into three broad categories. You could do that with a internal-vs-external-focus axis, but it would need to be worded a bit more broadly, the result being sort of Libertarian-vs.-Socialist (and that's as far into politics as I will go with this discussion).

[eggs]

Adding Smite Narrowminded to the game would be awesome.

Not so much for the ability as for the metagame drama.

[willpell]

There's some possibility of an interesting contrast between those who want the world to contain the widest possible variety of stuff - the kind of people who get their pizzas and Subway sandwiches "with everything" - and those who want a greater sort of austerity in their lives, wishing to exclude things that they don't want to exist. Consider some of the more absurd examples of template stacking that are possible, and then imagine a character who points to those as examples of a "thing that should not be", as proof that some combinations just don't mix.

This contrast somewhat feels like Law vs. Chaos, but it's not really the same. An "Inclusivist" might enjoy seeing how Chaos feeds on itself, as one catastrophe produces repercussions which disturb the balance of life in new and interesting ways for leagues around, but he also might enjoy seeing the way an ancient empire's legal codes and mazes of precedent grow ever more paradoxical and incestuous over time, producing interesting contradictions and special cases which he takes a geeky delight in noticing. Likewise, an "Austeritist" might use the law to try and prohibit combinations he doesn't like, or he might use the unrestrained powers of Chaos in an attempt to create space between things which he thinks shouldn't interact.

[Fitz10019]

...An alignment should be more cosmic...
It's hilarious to me that my suggestion spans to 'universal' and your reaction is that it isn't 'cosmic' enough.

I think an alignment axis should help to explain disagreements. You can understand why Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral would disagree about some things. The scope of each person's worldview would help explain when two Lawful Good characters have different opinions on a situation.


[An alignment axis should polarize] all people into three broad categories

I don't see why three is ideal. My worldview axis would be several. These could be grouped:
1. Me
2. Me and mine [family and/or friends, or hobby/obsession]
3. My living community [where I spend time in a typical year]
4. My entire race [as a mega-group; could also be country/church/cult/guild/organization/fellow hobby enthusiasts]
5. My race plus another race or two
5a. Not my race necessarily, but another race or two that I like (e.g. Drizz't, or druids' view regarding animals)
6. All humanoids
6a. Any potential customer for my business
6b. Any creature who has or earns enough to be taxed
7. All speaking creatures
7a. Anyone I can communicate with
7b. Anyone I can argue with
8. Anything capable of feeling pain and/or joy
9. Anything and everything

Admittedly, what I'm describing could be called an affiliation instead of an alignment axis. Perhaps it branches too much to be an axis.

[willpell]

I don't see why three is ideal. My worldview axis would be several. These could be grouped:

Admittedly, what I'm describing could be called an affiliation instead of an alignment axis. Perhaps it branches too much to be an axis.

Exactly. Alignments are about which of two polar opposites you're closer to: A, B, or Neither. It doesn't measure how close you are to either extreme, though perhaps it should, and it doesn't give any possibility that there's any variance around either end, that there are different varities of Good or Evil possible - that's accomplished by combining two or more axes, not by making an axis itself vague in its defintion.

[panaikhan]

I rack up another vote for Funky / Square.
Though did in jest (I think), it is the only one I have seen so far that is plausible, adds depth to the character, and is easy to visualize. Plus it sounds fun, and isn't that why we're all here? Fun?

[grarrrg]

Plus it sounds fun, and isn't that why we're all here? Fun?

I had fun once.
It was awful.