PDA

View Full Version : Alignment is not Personality



CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-27, 12:26 AM
One of the greatest problems I've noticed with Alignment in my games is that my players don't like Alignment very much and arguments usually start over the confusion of "is this a morality system" vs. "is this a personality system". If the former view is taken (and I think this is what the game intends) then Alignment is a matter of absolute morality, that the world of D&D has certain actions are always evil (like torture or rape), Lawful (keeping oaths ect), Chaotic (Lying) ect. So if somebody is Lawful Evil, then it isn't their personality so much as the sum of their actions. Or is Alignment a matter of personality, so a Lawful Good Person doesn't actually have to commit Good actions but fit the mind set of altruism and respect for authority. In my games I felt that the former was true (otherwise why bother with a morality system) but I felt their was a gap to be filled, so i have come up with some alternatives to alignment to try to get ride of these alignment debates. Here are some of the "Semi alternative" alignment systems I cam up with, but if anybody has any other ideas please let me know. In my game all of these systems co-exist with alignment and each other, but I imagine alot of people would like to pick and choose
Also I am not a New Age person at all, these systems just appealed to my D&D instincts :) On that note, when i'm drawing from real life personality systems, I am not trying to directly translate them into the game, i am using them as inspiration for my own ideas, I don't want to have a RL debate about the psychological validity of the Greek Temperaments. Also this is my Player's creation, so I might get details incorrect sorry.


Anyways, These are my ideas, does anybody have any other alternative to Alignment they think would work?

1) The Magic the Gathering Color system: Essentially this system calculates one's values, based upon the six colors (we added yellow). Black values self interest and pragmatism, Blue values curiosity and change, Green values tradition and conservatism, White Values society and community, Yellow values harmony and self peace, and Red values honesty and emotions. The way the system works is that you have a Primary color and a secondary color, (a few people have only a single color but they tend to be extreme). As you notice, none of these colors are inherently good or evil, A White person (yes I know that sounds awkward) might initiate genocides for "The good of the group" while a Black person might fight against them for the sake of personal freedom. In my game, Mages (who are more like World of Warcraft Mages and are a different class from Wizards) draw their power from the Colors, and many classes can be like Paladins for a specific color (Champions are White, Shadow Knights are Black, Wardens are Green ect). Colors are dictated by your values, not by your actual personality or even your actions, somebody who is White/Blue might still be extremely honest and prone to emotional explosions, however they value blue and look down on red (I am totally not speaking from personal experience here)

2) The five Temperaments. Drawn from Ancient Greek Medicine, this dictates your actual personality rather than your beliefs or actions. I got the idea off a random D&D website that i have long since forgotten the address for, essentially their are 5 Core Types, Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic, Supine, and Sanguine, each of which you have a Primary and a secondary. Choleric is moralistic, leadership oriented, intense, exaverted and confrontational, Melancholic is introverted, perfectionism, contemplative, self reflective, and obsessive, Phlegmatic is organized, pragmatic, disciplined, emotionally withdrawn and hard working, Supine is Introverted, timid, analytic, patient, commutative, and compromised focused, and loving, and Finally Sanguine is exaverted, adventurous, brave, afraid of standing still, constantly moving and excitable. If I seem to be bias here I am sorry, according to this system I am Choleric/Sanguine so I am not good at moderation ;) Various classes in my game are based around what personality traits you have and what traits you manifest.

3) Zodiacs. These are a combination of the Eastern and Western Zodiacs (maybe I will include the Indian Zodiac I don't know much about it) and this dictates the way you think, rahter than your personality. I haven't finished this system yet, but Its an idea worth considering

4) The Enneagrams. These are the 9 flaws somebody can manifest, I wanted to find somebody what wasn't "Sins" but rather just dispositions somebody has and this seemed to fit. Each character would choose three, a Primary disposition, a secondary, and an occasional. They are numbered, so somebody who is a One is absolutist, obsessed with perfection, and has a massive terror of anything "corrupt or being bad", and can be prone to being resentful or hypercritical Twos desire Love, friendship, and flattery, and their major fear is being unloved or forgotten, and can be prone to being too selfless or emotionally manipulative. Threes want success and to be powerful, and have a fear of failing or being worthiless and can be overachievers or ambitiously ruthless. Fours want to be unique and special, have a fear of losing their identity and can prone to have a matyre complex. Fives want to understand everything in the world, have a fear of being helpless or having no guidlines, and can be prone to get lost in their own heads. Sixes have a very complicated love hate relationship with authority, and bounce back and forth between being very eager to please and trusting of authority, and extremely distrustful and revolutionary (very Blake like their). They fear having nobody to guide them and they desire something to believe it, and can be prone either to cowardice or extremism. Sevens are obsessed with enjoying life and experiencing everything, they fear being deprived, and they can be prone to hedonism. Eights are extremely survival and instict focused, they fear weakness or being controlled, and they can be prone to cutting themselves off from others because they think they are totally self-sufficient or extreme violence towards enemies (real or percieved). Finally Nines are obsessed with peace and contemplation, they fear loss and conflict, and can be prone to avoidance or letting others walk over them. They are divided into the Mind Group (Fives, Sixes and Sevens), the Body Group (Eights, Nines, and Ones) and the Soul Group (Two, Threes, and Fours), and each character has one from each group. In my game, the Fey are the embodyments of these types which is why they are so alien and strange


5) The Seasons, these dictate how one sees/interacts with the world, one's external interactions rather than one's internal. Essentially their are four categories each with three subtypes, like the Roman Calender. Spring see the world as a chance to create a world a legacy and fame, Winter wants to understand their place of the world, Summer want to understand the world, Fall doesn't really have a relationship with the world as they are so internal. Each specific season has different months to dictate how extreme they are in their view. In my game, faries are the beings of hte seasons, while Fey are the beings of the Ennegrams, so fairies are far less inherently hostile then Fey

6) Charkas, which are how your learn from the world. In my game this system is only used by Martial artists class (I have alot of Classes which draw upon Jade Empire) so it really only matters depending upon what school you draw upon . In short their are seven Charkas, each of which has something which blocks your potential, and something which lets it go.

7) Honor, which was a setting specific setting I designed for my "Legend of hte Five Rings" game but I sometime use in my D&D game, which is a combination of Palladium alignment and Legend of the Five Rings. Essentially, for those in the world who practice reincarnation, their are ten stages of honor which dictate who well you follow your own societies understanding of Honor, this system is EXTREMELY flexiable and every society has their own version. Their are three Groups, Pure, Selfish and Corrupt, each with 3 or 4 sub gropus. Principled means you understand the Letter, spirit and purpose of societies law, Scrupulous means that you follow the letter but not the spirit, REputation maens that you follow it because it is expected of them, and Ethical follow the Spirit of the Law but not the letter and often break taboos in order to do what they think is right. These the four types of "Pure". Indulgent, follow it because it is a life style, Anarchist understand they should follow it but don't, and they are the two types of selfish. Miscreant follow honor only to suit themseles, Aberrant have their own personal sense of honor and reject societies, having no societal form of honor at all, and Diabolic follow societies honor system but in fact only pay lip service and reject teh very belief of Honor. This system only works in a game which has an active Karma system or a magically induced Caste system.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-27, 01:03 AM
It's both actually. At least in 3.5 it is.

Very few actions are inherently aligned and even a few of them can find themselves being at both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. In very nearly all cases why you're commiting an act is a defining factor in whether that action is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Your attitude is just as important as what you do with it but your attitude is also only as important as what you do with it.

I can't speak about any of the other systems you've brought up, for lack of familiarity.

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-27, 01:30 AM
It's both actually. At least in 3.5 it is.

Very few actions are inherently aligned and even a few of them can find themselves being at both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. In very nearly all cases why you're commiting an act is a defining factor in whether that action is good, evil, lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Your attitude is just as important as what you do with it but your attitude is also only as important as what you do with it.

I can't speak about any of the other systems you've brought up, for lack of familiarity.

I thought it was your intentions rather than your attitude? So for example, if I give money to charity in order to improve my own self image then i'm not committing a good action, or if I kill what I thought was an monster but was in fact an innocent who had been charmed and polymorphed, then I still haven't committed an evil action. But if I torture a prisoner with a Good attitude its still evil.

Am i wrong?

Wyntonian
2012-12-27, 01:37 AM
I dunno, there's a lot of grey area. If I torture someone mercilessly, making them think I killed their children, their loved ones, breaking them body and soul, but only the bare minimum to extract the codes I need to shut down the robot-demon-zombie army that's about to massacre the refugee camp? It's one man's life (and not even that, really, he's still alive) versus an arbitrarily large number of others. You can't look at all the children left alive because of those actions and say that doing the bare minimum to save them is "evil".

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-27, 01:42 AM
I dunno, there's a lot of grey area. If I torture someone mercilessly, making them think I killed their children, their loved ones, breaking them body and soul, but only the bare minimum to extract the codes I need to shut down the robot-demon-zombie army that's about to massacre the refugee camp? It's one man's life (and not even that, really, he's still alive) versus an arbitrarily large number of others. You can't look at all the children left alive because of those actions and say that doing the bare minimum to save them is "evil".

According to the book of exalted deeds, then yes that is certainly evil (since D&D operates in an objective morality world) because the Ends don't justify the means. So within the context of D&D that is evil.


Wait, are you not physically just lying to them and emotionally abusing them? Cause if thats the case i'm not as sure but....would that work? Woudln't taking way all of their hope make them less likely to talk?

TuggyNE
2012-12-27, 01:42 AM
I dunno, there's a lot of grey area. If I torture someone mercilessly, making them think I killed their children, their loved ones, breaking them body and soul, but only the bare minimum to extract the codes I need to shut down the robot-demon-zombie army that's about to massacre the refugee camp? It's one man's life (and not even that, really, he's still alive) versus an arbitrarily large number of others. You can't look at all the children left alive because of those actions and say that doing the bare minimum to save them is "evil".

Actually, yes, BoED would in fact say that doing evil things (torture is officially always evil) for good ends is still evil. It might be necessary to accomplish some great good, but it's not less evil.

Which I agree with; the end does not justify the means, though it may outweigh them.

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-27, 01:52 AM
Actually, yes, BoED would in fact say that doing evil things (torture is officially always evil) for good ends is still evil. It might be necessary to accomplish some great good, but it's not less evil.

Which I agree with; the end does not justify the means, though it may outweigh them.

Seconded. But on the subject of the thread, do you guys ever notice that people seem to see AL as a personality system more then a morality system?

Malak'ai
2012-12-27, 02:04 AM
No. You can have a CE mass murdering maniac who's actually a light-hearted, up-beat joker, or a cold, distant, cynical LG Paladin who doesn't truely care about your feelings as long as you're safe and living a "good" life.

toapat
2012-12-27, 02:26 AM
Seconded. But on the subject of the thread, do you guys ever notice that people seem to see AL as a personality system more then a morality system?

I agree that it is way too often used as a personality system, expecially because it is presented as such.

In presentation, the alignment system in the books is this:

Good: Any good actions as defined by the codes of chivalry
Lawful: Any actions as defined as within the codes of chivalry
Evil: Any Negative action.
Chaotic: Any action that violates the codes of chivalry.

In more practical terms, it is more like this:

Good: Actions that benefit more then they harm
Lawful: Actions that are Respectful
Evil: Actions that harm more then they benefit.
Chaotic: Actions that are defiant

Libertad
2012-12-27, 03:12 AM
Well, alignment began originally not as personality, but literally whose team you were on in the planes-spanning war between Law and Chaos.

Then in 1st Edition AD&D, we got nine alignments, where each of them had an incentive to promote their like-minded forces at the expenses of the other ones. There was no selfish "Neutral Evil" or apathetic "True Neutral." Both of them had vested interests int promoting their goals throughout the Multiverse.

In 2nd Edition, it veered away from this in favor of making alignments equivalent to ideologies for people to follow. Not necessarily personality traits, but their values could influence their interactions with others.

3rd Edition has the greatest similarity to personality tropes. Chaotic Evil people are reckless, emotional, and disorganized. Were it not for these descriptions, they'd be almost the same as Neutral Evil.

I discussed this extensively in my "Alignment Throughout the Ages" topic, which should be a link in my sig.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-27, 03:20 AM
I thought it was your intentions rather than your attitude? So for example, if I give money to charity in order to improve my own self image then i'm not committing a good action, or if I kill what I thought was an monster but was in fact an innocent who had been charmed and polymorphed, then I still haven't committed an evil action. But if I torture a prisoner with a Good attitude its still evil.

Am i wrong?

Intention comes from attitude. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between them.

Could you elaborate?

(The second example is too ill-defined for a definitive answer, btw. It depends on -why- you were killing the "monster")

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-27, 03:34 AM
Intention comes from attitude. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between them.

Could you elaborate?

(The second example is too ill-defined for a definitive answer, btw. It depends on -why- you were killing the "monster")

Well I think somebody earlier mentioned an upbeat CE person or a cynical LG person, I think intentions is only relevant in their relationship to actions. To expand on the second example, a Paladin sees what he thinks is a demonic Mane attacking some villagers and failing his save to recognize it as an illusion and runs in and kills it, not realizing that the innocent person just got killed.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-27, 03:41 AM
Well I think somebody earlier mentioned an upbeat CE person or a cynical LG person, I think intentions is only relevant in their relationship to actions. To expand on the second example, a Paladin sees what he thinks is a demonic Mane attacking some villagers and failing his save to recognize it as an illusion and runs in and kills it, not realizing that the innocent person just got killed.

I see what you mean now. In that case, no. The alignment system has nothing at all to do with a character's personality.

Paladins and demons again. :smallsigh: Yes, in that instance the paladin wouldn't be committing an evil act, simply a tragic one. There was, presumably, no time to actually use detect evil since the "demon" appeared to be attacking innocents. It would would certainly be appropriate for the paladin to feel bad about it, but he should be fine in the eyes of the forces of good and/or his god.

ReaderAt2046
2012-12-27, 10:30 AM
I dunno, there's a lot of grey area. If I torture someone mercilessly, making them think I killed their children, their loved ones, breaking them body and soul, but only the bare minimum to extract the codes I need to shut down the robot-demon-zombie army that's about to massacre the refugee camp? It's one man's life (and not even that, really, he's still alive) versus an arbitrarily large number of others. You can't look at all the children left alive because of those actions and say that doing the bare minimum to save them is "evil".

My thoughts on that issue (both fictinally and IRL) is that when there is a choice between two evils, the "good" path is the one that produces a lesser evil.

So in your example, the act of torturing the person is still evil, but because to do nothing would arguably be an even greater evil, a good person could justifiably commit the act of torture. Or to give a real-life analogy, lying and breaking the law is wrong, but it was justified in, say, Nazi Germany because the alternative course of action (giving up Jews or other refugees to be tortured and executed) was even more wrong.

Burner28
2012-12-27, 12:12 PM
One of the greatest problems I've noticed with Alignment in my games is that my players don't like Alignment very much and arguments usually start over the confusion of "is this a morality system" vs. "is this a personality system".

To reinforce what others have said, both you action and attitude are important in determining your alignment.

Anima
2012-12-27, 12:13 PM
My thoughts on that issue (both fictinally and IRL) is that when there is a choice between two evils, the "good" path is the one that produces a lesser evil.

No, when all you have is the choice between two evil paths, there is no good path at all. That's already defined in the problem statement.

I think it's important to remember that there is a fundamental difference between doing something good and choosing the lesser of two evils. Although you will find situations where there is no third way to be pretty rare outside of (carefully) constructed thought experiments.
Being a good person is also about finding this ways even if it's difficult instead of taking the easy way out. Though sometimes it comes at great personal costs and there are situations where not everyone can be saved.

A classical situation of that sort would be: You arrive in a village after an earthquake. Several villagers are severely injured and a few houses are burning. You have enough magic to heal and save one of the dying people. Who do you save? A child because it still has so much potential? A pregnant women because you can save two lives that way? The village elder because his leadership will save more people in the long run?

I find this situations much more interesting and meaningful. Instead of trying to find the breaking point in the characters morals, it's more about refining and exploring them. While the former has certainly merit and a place in the ethical dilemma arsenal, it should be used sparingly.
While it's true that the world does not conform to a persons morals, it's also true that the world does not oppose these morals either. If a character has the belief that a person shouldn't be sacrificed for the good of the many, then the world shouldn't start to be only salvageable by human sacrifices.
It would be much more interesting to explore what sacrifice and the good of the many actually mean for the character.

Though I wonder how often those kind of false dilemmas/pest or cholera choices are used in actual play.

To give my two cents to the original question, I always understood alignment as ethics. Just that instead of having different mortal schools of thought, we have 9 cosmic fundamentals around which you construct your morals around.
For me being lawful good never meant that you can never disobey a law if it's bad, it just meant that you would want to replace it with a better law. It also meant that you want authority not derived by the power to enforce it but by the right to wield it. If it's the people mandates like a modern social contract, divine mandate or simply tradition, it's ultimately the refutation of the principle "Might makes right".
That's also why I personally found the thought that lawful good could ever mean simply following a personal code pretty alien.

Actually the action a character would take would not be directly based on their alignment but on the ethic they have build upon that foundation. Not unlike how the basic law is not usually referred to in court cases, but the laws that are do.
That's why I don't think that the alignment of a character informs me about what kind of actions he will take or what kind of values he has. Instead the tell me something about the basis those are formed upon.
I have to admit though that these is all just theory crafting, since I didn't end up playing any game with alignment in it so far.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-12-27, 12:38 PM
I rather like the idea of seasons-as-alignment.

falloutimperial
2012-12-27, 05:10 PM
One "Lord Gareth" had a similar idea to yours regarding the MTG color system. I think you will find it useful or relevant.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177

snoopy13a
2012-12-27, 08:34 PM
Actually, you don't have to go farther than OotS to find a wide range of personalities within a single alignment.

For example, the following characters are lawful good in the OotS universe: Roy, Durkon, Hinjo, Lien, Roy's mother, Roy's grandfater, Roy's brother, Roy's archon, Lord Soon, Miko (pre-loss of paladin powers at least), O-Chul, Thanh, Eugene (maybe, I think he could have changed alignment), and Celia (I believe so, anyway).

These characters aren't exactly clones of each other personality-wise.

toapat
2012-12-27, 09:06 PM
One "Lord Gareth" had a similar idea to yours regarding the MTG color system. I think you will find it useful or relevant.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177

Its actually pretty bad, as it doesnt really go into the depth of the colors before it starts making houserules. Take paladins for instance. Conviction in an Ideal is their thing. they are very much in DnD a red first class, even if most printed instances of the class are White cards that hate on Black and Red, but that is because DnD paladin (Champions of a cause) is not the same as MTG paladin (Exemplars of society)

Hiro Protagonest
2012-12-27, 10:42 PM
Actually, you don't have to go farther than OotS to find a wide range of personalities within a single alignment.

For example, the following characters are lawful good in the OotS universe: Roy, Durkon, Hinjo, Lien, Roy's mother, Roy's grandfater, Roy's brother, Roy's archon, Lord Soon, Miko (pre-loss of paladin powers at least), O-Chul, Thanh, Eugene (maybe, I think he could have changed alignment), and Celia (I believe so, anyway).

These characters aren't exactly clones of each other personality-wise.
Celia is CG, Roy's father is LG (just with a long-term version of ADD/ADHD).

Its actually pretty bad, as it doesnt really go into the depth of the colors before it starts making houserules. Take paladins for instance. Conviction in an Ideal is their thing. they are very much in DnD a red first class, even if most printed instances of the class are White cards that hate on Black and Red, but that is because DnD paladin (Champions of a cause) is not the same as MTG paladin (Exemplars of society)

Ehh, I think Crusaders would be Red. Taking the Exalted Virtues, I think Red would be more about Valor and Compassion than Conviction (goblins, though, have low everything, although the ones that rise above the rabbles have higher Conviction).

D&D Paladins (guys with good moral compasses and some magic) in the color wheel really shouldn't have any alignment, besides "not black or blue primary".

Lord_Gareth's Color Wheel still isn't exactly great, I think it should just be pick a primary color, pick up to two secondaries, done.

toapat
2012-12-28, 12:50 AM
Ehh, I think Crusaders would be Red. Taking the Exalted Virtues, I think Red would be more about Valor and Compassion than Conviction (goblins, though, have low everything, although the ones that rise above the rabbles have higher Conviction).

D&D Paladins (guys with good moral compasses and some magic) in the color wheel really shouldn't have any alignment, besides "not black or blue primary".

Lord_Gareth's Color Wheel still isn't exactly great, I think it should just be pick a primary color, pick up to two secondaries, done.

Crusaders strike me as more White/Green then red.

basically, every color would better be compared with their most extreme natures for translation to DnD.

White: Order: Unity/Oppressive

The color of Order, it seeks to establish communities, law, and safety, but is very impersonal and uncaring about the individual. It is the only color which chooses to define Morality, which is why alot of the "Good" Creatures and professions find their home here.

Blue: Knowledge: Wisdom/Ignorance

The color of Knowledge, it seeks to understand law, to use wisdom and logic, but it is very impersonal and mechanical. It is the color most involved in Artifice and science, but it sees nothing wrong in applying those to the natural world. It is the most progressive color, but can become locked into beliefs that are incorrect.

Black: Self: Freedom/Tyrannic

The color of Individualism, It seeks power. it is the most personal color, but it also is the most internally conflicted. It favors growth of self, but has little care about how that effects others. Typically we see the "Evil" creatures end up here because they care little for who they hurt, just like black. At best, it promotes Freedom, but at worst it promotes tyranny.

Red: Emotion: Conviction/Anarchic

the color of emotion, it seeks experiences and things to believe in. While this makes it extremely personal, it is also the least predictable color. Typically it is linked to destructive forces, and to chaos, because it is not a color of structure. It is the second most likely color to interact with morality, because while white is the color of order and systems, red is the color of conviction. White says what is right and wrong, red knows what is right and wrong.

Green: Nature: Adaptive/Regressive

The color of Nature, Green is primal, mighty, and fluid. It is a color which believes in adversity and challenge, and adapting to them, as well as to natural communities. On the other hand, Green is very rigid in its choices, and it does not favor artifice or magical adaptation, and so it prevents progress through anything but evolution.

basically, Paladins in 3.5 fall almost entirely into Red+White+black, with paladin of slaughter being fully Red+Black. Green

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-28, 03:10 PM
On the Subject of Colors

I actually got the idea from Lord Gareth's idea, but I thought it lacked proper fluff. Basically what my group did with the system is add another color, Yellow (essentially splitting Green) and made the system about your personal values. We also made difference class correspond to different colors, most of them adopted from World of Warcraft....


White: Order/Community: The Class Avenger (based upon the Warcraft Paladin) has to be White, as they draw directly from the concept of community

Black: I do not think black leads to tyranny, I think white is more in that direction Black can lead to anarchy or corruption, or social darwinism, but i think black is too individualistic to be tryannical at least not directly. In my game, The Diabolicist (Warcraft Warlock) is tied to this color

Red: Honesty and Emotional openess. The Warrior class from warcraft draws from this

Blue: I think their issue isn't that they get locked into beliefs, its that they tend to be very inconsiderate, since they love change so much they don't stop to consider the consequences (the mechanists from Thief 2 always seemed very Blue to me). In my game, Mages from Warcraft are Blue

Green: Tradition/Predestination. Green is nature focused, but in my games they also have a rather Calvanist bent. Wardens (Warcraft Druids) are green.

Yellow: Harmony/Flexibilty: Yellow is the added color, which focuses mostly upon trying to understand ones self and ones interaction with the world around them, as well as promoting harmony. At best they are kind and non judgemental, at worst they are conciliatory and indesisive. Yellow is represented in my games by Monks in my game.

On seasons

Would anybody be interested in making a system out of this?

Elderand
2012-12-28, 03:24 PM
I don't see how using a color system is any less subject to arguments than the alignement system honestly.

I'd say any and all system attempting to define a person moral outlook/actions will inevitably lead to such arguments.

toapat
2012-12-28, 04:28 PM
On the Subject of Colors

I actually got the idea from Lord Gareth's idea, but I thought it lacked proper fluff. Basically what my group did with the system is add another color, Yellow (essentially splitting Green) and made the system about your personal values. We also made difference class correspond to different colors, most of them adopted from World of Warcraft....


White: Order/Community: The Class Avenger (based upon the Warcraft Paladin) has to be White, as they draw directly from the concept of community

Black: I do not think black leads to tyranny, I think white is more in that direction Black can lead to anarchy or corruption, or social darwinism, but i think black is too individualistic to be tryannical at least not directly. In my game, The Diabolicist (Warcraft Warlock) is tied to this color

Red: Honesty and Emotional openess. The Warrior class from warcraft draws from this

Blue: I think their issue isn't that they get locked into beliefs, its that they tend to be very inconsiderate, since they love change so much they don't stop to consider the consequences (the mechanists from Thief 2 always seemed very Blue to me). In my game, Mages from Warcraft are Blue

Green: Tradition/Predestination. Green is nature focused, but in my games they also have a rather Calvanist bent. Wardens (Warcraft Druids) are green.

Yellow: Harmony/Flexibilty: Yellow is the added color, which focuses mostly upon trying to understand ones self and ones interaction with the world around them, as well as promoting harmony. At best they are kind and non judgemental, at worst they are conciliatory and indesisive. Yellow is represented in my games by Monks in my game.

On seasons

Would anybody be interested in making a system out of this?

Alternate Alignment systems work about as often as the earth crashes into the sun.

you also really dont understand how Alignment and MTG colors correlate. which is entirely within Red (Chaos), Black (Evil), and White (Law). Yellow isnt actually the extra color, its purple if you want to add something, and Purple is specifically the color of Artifice.

White is Oppressive, not Tyrannical. Black is Tyrannical because it is one person oppressing everyone else using his power and excess, where as White doesnt have anyone with the upper hand.

as for seasons: its just the moral alignments by a different name.

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-28, 10:50 PM
Alternate Alignment systems work about as often as the earth crashes into the sun.

you also really dont understand how Alignment and MTG colors correlate. which is entirely within Red (Chaos), Black (Evil), and White (Law). Yellow isnt actually the extra color, its purple if you want to add something, and Purple is specifically the color of Artifice.

White is Oppressive, not Tyrannical. Black is Tyrannical because it is one person oppressing everyone else using his power and excess, where as White doesnt have anyone with the upper hand.

as for seasons: its just the moral alignments by a different name.

You misunderstand, I don't want colors as a replacement for Alignment. I want it as a co existing system which deals more with one's personal values while AL deals with the objective morality.

That way you can have the personality types and the morality type and hopefully have less arguments....


Wait why purple? That isn't a primary color?

toapat
2012-12-28, 11:35 PM
Wait why purple? That isn't a primary color?

Its the Sideboarded 6th color, it was going to be added a few years ago, then they decided to change Futuresight to "Cards that have yet to be printed"

basically, if you want to use an alternative alignment system use this:

Moral: Good/Moral - Evil/Amoral
Methods: Lawful/Systemic - Chaotic/Anarchic
Perspective: Pragmatic - Idealistic

CowardlyPaladin
2012-12-29, 08:42 PM
Its the Sideboarded 6th color, it was going to be added a few years ago, then they decided to change Futuresight to "Cards that have yet to be printed"

basically, if you want to use an alternative alignment system use this:

Moral: Good/Moral - Evil/Amoral
Methods: Lawful/Systemic - Chaotic/Anarchic
Perspective: Pragmatic - Idealistic

Do you know what personality type purple would have?

toapat
2012-12-29, 10:46 PM
Do you know what personality type purple would have?

Analytical.

Except the 5+32+/-1 colors in magic do not relate to personality, or alignment. They relate even moreso to abstract concepts then the alignment system in DnD.

TheOOB
2012-12-30, 02:21 AM
It's important to note that the D&D alignment system is in no way a personality system. While there is debate about the individual ins and outs of the system, the basics of the systems are pretty set in stone(especially in 3.5). A creatures alignment is an inherent, objective quality that determines their susceptibility to certain magic effects. It is nothing more, nothing less.

That said, my preferred system in no system. I don't think the concept of alignment really improves the game. Is the game better because someone can cast detect evil on your villain? Is the game better because the cleric has dozens of crappy spells that only kinda work vs certain aligned creatures? I'd say not.

If you take alignment out of the system, it doesn't really change much. Alignment prerequisites can just as easily be handled by codes of conduct(A Cleric of Pelor must act in accordance with the tenets of Pelor, there done), or in some cases though vague magic(a holy sword only works for a "virtuous soul". You could even still have good and evil subtypes for outsiders, and magic that works against them.

As for an interesting system, in Exalted certain creatures are labeled "creatures of darkness", and holy charms are stronger vs them. What defines something as a creature of darkness you ask. A god, The Unconquered Sun. He can literally call whatever he wants a creature of darkness. Certain broad categories of creatures he has decided are all dark, undead, yomi, abyssal exalted, akuma, ect, but he can name a certain individual mortal one if he so chooses(lesson, don't piss off The Unconquered Sun)

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-30, 03:14 AM
I disagree with OOB's point that the alignment system doesn't add to the game, but otherwise he's right. It can be dropped entirely and the parts of the system that don't interact with it (most of the game) will continue to function just fine.

IMO, the alignment system adds a certain richness to a campaign in which the struggle between good and evil is a highlight of the campaign. It's rife with potential for misuse and misinterpretation, but if it's well used it definitely adds something to the game. That's my 2cp on that subject, anyway.

TuggyNE
2012-12-30, 04:11 AM
IMO, the alignment system adds a certain richness to a campaign in which the struggle between good and evil is a highlight of the campaign. It's rife with potential for misuse and misinterpretation, but if it's well used it definitely adds something to the game. That's my 2cp on that subject, anyway.

Or, as the case may be, Law and Chaos. (They're a bit less evocative, but still have a certain umph.)