Third Alignment Axis?

[Blueiji]

After reading through this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828) I became very interested in the idea of a third alignment axis. The axis described in the link is a tad silly, but I think the core of the idea is a great one (props to you Kellus).

After some searching, I found a alignment quiz that suggests a "realist-neutral-dreamer" as a third axis, which is nice, but I can't imagine any conflicts between two major factions imply over a case of optimists versus pessimists. Let alone outer planes dedicated to those ideals.

So has anyone heard of an interesting third alignment axis?

[NamelessNPC]

Once, talking with a friend about how silly D&D alignments are we started thinking a way to improve them, and we came with conservative-neutral-progressive and generous-neutral-selfish as the two axis (axisis?). The paladin would be Conservative-Generous, for example. I thought it was pretty cool, and a lot less simplistic (even if just as schematic) than the traditional alignments, but we didn't develop it further.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I once saw an idea for an Active-Neutral-Passive axis regarding alignment; Active Neutral Good going out there and actually doing good, while Passive Neutral Good will sit and wait for something to come up and do good.

[grarrrg]

We just had this thread (http://alt.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249690) less than 2 months ago.

The consensus for the 3rd axis was "Funky/Square" (like you linked to).

[Snowbluff]

God, one of my friends decided he wanted to try this. The ensuing conversation only succeeded in turning me off on the idea. 27 part system = barf.

Last week he walked into my house after work and said he want an 81part/4axis alignment system. I nearly cried at the thought of making an alignment hypercube.

Actually, hypercubes are cooler than cubes.

4 axes I proposed:

Good vs. Evil
Affable vs. Maniacal
Law vs. Chaos
Anti vs. Traditional (for anti-villains and anti-heroes)

[Anderlith]

(Cynic-Neutral-Dreamer) might be a better fit, neutral would be the realists

[ManuelSacha]

We just had this thread (http://alt.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249690) less than 2 months ago.

The consensus for the 3rd axis was "Funky/Square" (like you linked to).
If you read that he linked it in the first post, why did you feel the need to answer anything at all?
Besides, that's OBVIOUSLY a silly "joke thread". And the descriptions amount to stuff "LG but cool" vs "LG but uncool"...


(Cynic-Neutral-Dreamer) might be a better fit, neutral would be the realists

Yup. Makes more sense.
I don't see what impact this could have on the game, though.
Actually, overall... I don't see the need for a third alignment axis. D&D has repeatedly failed to use alignments in a useful and/or believable way. I'd rather remove them altogether than make them even more of a restriction to the player's creativity.


Once, talking with a friend about how silly D&D alignments are we started thinking a way to improve them, and we came with conservative-neutral-progressive and generous-neutral-selfish as the two axis (axisis?). The paladin would be Conservative-Generous, for example. I thought it was pretty cool, and a lot less simplistic (even if just as schematic) than the traditional alignments, but we didn't develop it further.

This makes a lot of sense.
More enjoyable than the usual "good" or "evil" labels, too.

[grarrrg]

If you read that he linked it in the first post, why did you feel the need to answer anything at all?

:smallsigh:

Because we JUST had this discussion TWO months ago (check my link), after a lot of back-and-forth the best consensus was "Funky/Square.
I was pointed out that it had been done, and quite recently at that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Call me crazy, I like the alignment system as is.

The problem I see most people bringing up is the idea that alignment is a restriction. It's just a label. Behavior determines alignment, alignment doesn't determine behavior. This is explicitly described in everything WotC has ever printed about alignment.

The other thing I see happening way too often is people slapping one of the alignment stickers on a particular action either because of -potential- consequences rather than direct, immediate consequences; or because of blanket statements that are derivative of the actual rules.

Case in point: poison use is evil. Poison use is only evil if the poison causes ability damage, which exempts a number of poisons all by itself, unless it's part of a creature's natural arsenal.

Then there are ravages (good "poisons" described in BoED) that are A) explicitly not poison, in spite of their mechanical similarity and B) magical in nature unlike nearly all other poisons.

The spell chill touch has the exact same mechanical properties as an injury poison delivered by an attack (hp damage + ability damage with a save to negate the ability damage) but noone's arguing that it's evil.

"Poison use is evil," is a blanket statement derived from the actual rules, not a rule unto itself.

All that said, D&D is perfectly playable without the alignment system. Leave that part of your character sheet blank and use spirit binding instead of planar binding and you'll never even miss it.

Oh, and give the paladin detect spirits or detect taint and smite the same.

If you don't have CAr (why not?) you could use something similar to the allegience system from D20 modern in place of alignment. Upon choosing a class with features keyed to alignment you replace the alignment with an allegience in line with or opposed to your own, as appropriate.

90% of the game works exactly the same without alignment, so removing it is a fairly minor change in all but flavor.

[willpell]

This is the third "expanding alignment" thread I've subscribed to in like a week. I'm beginning to think they should be consolidated into a single stickied "alignment expanded" thread, as this seems to be a perrenial topic and there's much redundancy.

[grarrrg]

This is the third "expanding alignment" thread I've subscribed to in like a week. I'm beginning to think they should be consolidated into a single stickied "alignment expanded" thread, as this seems to be a perrenial topic and there's much redundancy.

:smallconfused:?

This is just one of those ideas that every either thinks up at the same time, or they subliminally read the Thread header without ever clicking it and that's how they come up with the idea.
It'll go away soon.

Besides, if ANYTHING should be stickied for being redundant, it should be Monkday.

[Socratov]

This is the third "expanding alignment" thread I've subscribed to in like a week. I'm beginning to think they should be consolidated into a single stickied "alignment expanded" thread, as this seems to be a perrenial topic and there's much redundancy.

please, can we do the smae for strongheartvest for Hellfire warlocks as well? thsoe threads seem to come back every 3 months or so...

On topic, I think it couls be funny, depending on what you want for a third axis, however, it would get thrice as complicated. I mean, we have 2 allready and it generates more discussion and questions as it is, if we add a third we might just be inviting the hell of discuwssions upon ourselves.

On playing without alignment, I'm not so keen on that... Waht people do forget however, is the fact that actions define the alignment, not the other way around. the picking of an alignment is merely the base setting of what your character has done before you started playing him/her/it. I think itwould be great if DM's woudl remember alignment changes. it would encourage players to think upon their actions and motivations for that action, inducing a heavy part of roleplaying. the only times when someone would have to be careful with his choices would be in the cases of paladins and comparative classes...

[danzibr]

Totally knew the funky/square was coming up.

Anyway, I'm a fan of the slothful v. diligent, which has sort of been mentioned.