PDA

View Full Version : Point Based Alignment System



LordErebus12
2013-12-30, 07:12 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Lkorreq.jpg

Something I've always wanted to explore... A point based alignment system, where you move around the grid system as you acquire points, be they good, evil, lawful or chaotic.

Players, I'd imagine would begin very near the center, with deeds pushing them further towards a given section (if they focus on those types of actions) or else slowly moving them away from their chosen alignments.

I'd imagine that, instead of players simply choosing an alignment and attempting to act in that way until the DM has a problem with the actions, a DM and player could actively track their choices, allowing them to track at what point the player actually begins to change alignments.

For example... The party's paladin begins at (L:10 , G:10), corresponding to a lawful good alignment, but only slightly. over the course of the adventure, the paladin's alignment begins to gain a lot more good points than lawful points. The paladin has acquired 35 extra good points for his deeds, but toeing the law with his party has kept him from gaining any lawful points. His current total is (L:10 , G: 45), slowly shifting outside the paladin's requirement for alignment. The DM gives a warning that the paladin is close to breaking his moral code, perhaps close to angering the gods the paladin follows. If the paladin continues, it he may lose his class features.

What is everyone's take on it?

Allmighty_Gwyn
2013-12-30, 08:06 PM
I particularly like this- although I'd like to post a link to something very similar. I only know this because I'm involved in a Pathfinder campaign, but this has been done.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/characterBackground/backgroundGenerator.html

(the alignment system is near the bottom, just under "crime and punishment" and above "religious philosophy.)

In this one it scales from 1 to 9, on each axis of good/evil and lawful/chaotic. Although sometimes it can be difficult to determine which acts count as a whole point towards a different alignment.

The reason I point all this out is because I wanted to say that I want to use your system, because even the little things count.

Although strictly speaking, I'm not too fond of Alignment in systems as a whole. Yes, it gives you an idea when you jump into your character at a session as to how he would behave, but enforcing it as a DM can be exhausting. Not to mention, just about every 'moral' act in the game can be painted with a shade of grey (with obvious exceptions.)

So really cool chart! I may apply it to my 'not completely legal' game.

LordErebus12
2013-12-30, 08:14 PM
I particularly like this- although I'd like to post a link to something very similar. I only know this because I'm involved in a Pathfinder campaign, but this has been done.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/characterBackground/backgroundGenerator.html

(the alignment system is near the bottom, just under "crime and punishment" and above "religious philosophy.)

In this one it scales from 1 to 9, on each axis of good/evil and lawful/chaotic. Although sometimes it can be difficult to determine which acts count as a whole point towards a different alignment.

The reason I point all this out is because I wanted to say that I want to use your system, because even the little things count.

Although strictly speaking, I'm not too fond of Alignment in systems as a whole. Yes, it gives you an idea when you jump into your character at a session as to how he would behave, but enforcing it as a DM can be exhausting. Not to mention, just about every 'moral' act in the game can be painted with a shade of grey (with obvious exceptions.)

So really cool chart! I may apply it to my 'not completely legal' game.

The point is not to track every single action, because you are right; not every action is outside the 'Grey'.

However, certain actions are strongly aligned and should hold weight on the scales, so to speak.

TuggyNE
2013-12-30, 10:15 PM
The system will, of course, require considerable extra tracking, but I assume that's expected; you might have to tot up 5-30 alignment points per session in most cases, and make fairly quick judgment calls on all of those.


For example... The party's paladin begins at (L:10 , G:10), corresponding to a lawful good alignment, but only slightly. over the course of the adventure, the paladin's alignment begins to gain a lot more good points than lawful points. The paladin has acquired 35 extra good points for his deeds, but toeing the law with his party has kept him from gaining any lawful points. His current total is (L:10 , G: 45), slowly shifting outside the paladin's requirement for alignment. The DM gives a warning that the paladin is close to breaking his moral code, perhaps close to angering the gods the paladin follows. If the paladin continues, it he may lose his class features.

This example is quite puzzling, since the paladin is not close to breaking his moral code: he has become considerably more moral, and is no less ethical either. What is actually happening is that his commitment to lawful methods of achieving good hasn't strengthened "fast enough" to remain solidly LG as required, but there is no particular reason to suppose that would directly violate the code as such.

I'd say this highlights one of the inconsistencies with the chosen shape, at the very least, and should probably be corrected.

Durazno
2013-12-30, 10:34 PM
"You're a loose cannon, Sir Michael!"

"See all those towns I protected? See all those orphans I fed? I get results!"

"Turn in your sword and crest, Michael! You're off the force!"

LordErebus12
2013-12-31, 07:44 AM
I'd say this highlights one of the inconsistencies with the chosen shape, at the very least, and should probably be corrected.

Suggestions?

DarkLightHitomi
2013-12-31, 02:13 PM
Two things actually,

First, lower the number and instead of adding or subtracting points which can get crazy and unfair (in that someone could get enough points to commit cold murder without changing alignment) so instead, average the newly earned number with the existing number, there by making serious breaches of alignment still significant no matter what. You just take each action and give it a value between, say, 1-20, for each axis, with 10 being neutral and 1 being chaotic, and evil, and just average it. Performing really significant acts cause major shifts, but minor acts dont shift as much.

If you want slower, alignment change, just keep track of the last three to five alignment earnings and average them, which makes shifting slower, but does require more paper keeping.

Additionally, the extremea are extremes, most folks are true neutral, so the zones for the extremes should be smaller.

Also, you may consider looking at some alternate alignment systems. Mixing this with some of those could produce some neat stuff, and the alignment based on the nine rmotivations would be most interesting mixed with this concept.

nonsi
2013-12-31, 02:58 PM
Several things:
1. Color each quadrant: LG:Blue , CG:Green , LE:Yellow , CE:Red
2. Since Lawful & Good are positives while Chaotic & Evil are negatives, rotate the diagram around the vertical axis and you'll make it corresponding to the Cartesian grid. Would be a lot easier to remember. (X-axis will be for Law-Chaos and Y-axis will be for Good-Evil).
3. Enlarge the Neutral region a bit (your suggestion is way too restrictive). 1.5 squares per axis on each side would be just about right.
4. I'd put initial scores on either 0 or 30 and let things drift from there.
5. TuggyNE certainly makes a good point. If you start at 30, it'll make even more sense (where 10 is too far down the moral high ground - into the Neutral zone as per suggestion #3).

JBPuffin
2013-12-31, 06:47 PM
Several things:
1. Color each quadrant: LG:Blue , CG:Green , LE:Yellow , CE:Red
2. Since Lawful & Good are positives while Chaotic & Evil are negatives, rotate the diagram around the vertical axis and you'll make it corresponding to the Cartesian grid. Would be a lot easier to remember. (X-axis will be for Law-Chaos and Y-axis will be for Good-Evil).
3. Enlarge the Neutral region a bit (your suggestion is way too restrictive). 1.5 squares per axis on each side would be just about right.
4. I'd put initial scores on either 0 or 30 and let things drift from there.
5. TuggyNE certainly makes a good point. If you start at 30, it'll make even more sense (where 10 is too far down the moral high ground - into the Neutral zone as per suggestion #3).

I second all of these changes; it would make things much easier to see used in-game rather than just a nice theory.

TuggyNE
2013-12-31, 07:58 PM
I had an idea for a tweak you could add to this: if starting at higher levels, you gain some number of points (three for each level, or something) to spend as you see fit. Alignment changes take effect per level, and are necessary for any complex build setups. (Like Paladin LG -> Monk LG/LN -> Druid LN.)


Suggestions?

Make the corners square instead of curvy. (And probably also make them rather smaller; TN is far too small on the diagram in my opinion.)

Zman
2014-01-02, 12:18 PM
I really like this idea. You only need some criteria for what would cause certain alignment shifts.

A hugely Lawful Evil character feeding a begger and helping them avoid the law for sleeping on the street would be a massive shift compared to a Chaotic Good character performing the same act.

The hardest part would be criteria for shifting alignment, not all actions could be worth the same thing.

It seems similar to the KOTOR Alignment system, but if I remember correctly that was only Good and Evil, adding Law and Chaos into the mix is a bit more significant and complex.

LordErebus12
2014-01-02, 02:13 PM
I really like this idea. You only need some criteria for what would cause certain alignment shifts.

A hugely Lawful Evil character feeding a begger and helping them avoid the law for sleeping on the street would be a massive shift compared to a Chaotic Good character performing the same act.

The hardest part would be criteria for shifting alignment, not all actions could be worth the same thing.

It seems similar to the KOTOR Alignment system, but if I remember correctly that was only Good and Evil, adding Law and Chaos into the mix is a bit more significant and complex.

which is where i'm drawing it from. I'm making a kotor based system and planning on using this.

Hovannes
2014-01-06, 03:36 PM
LordErebus12;

I love this idea, and to be honest I have explored in detail. Several years ago I came up with a chart, not much different from your own, for alignments. I believe that alignments should be self-derived, not necessarily picked at character generation.

Everyone generally starts at 0,0 and once game play starts, the GM (along with player input) assigns alignment modifications based on behavior observed in-game. Not all decisions and/or actions should cause alignment modification, actually only distinct acts fall into this category. Further, once a player moves into one direction, he can stop, change course, and redeem himself is he so chooses.

I invite you to view some of my ideas on this topic and see if they interest you.

Behavior Derived Alignment (https://sites.google.com/site/pointsystemgaming/psg-core-rules/core-rules---alignment)

Viewing Alignment (https://sites.google.com/site/pointsystemgaming/psg-core-rules/core-rules---alignment/viewing-alignment)

List of Alignment Altering Behavior (https://sites.google.com/site/pointsystemgaming/psg-core-rules/core-rules---alignment/alignment-tables)

As with all things on the website, take what you like, disregard the rest.