Alignment Points?

[sambouchah]

What if Alignment in dnd was based on points rather than "I play Lawful Good"? I really don't like 3.5's alignment system and this came to me after our last session.

I'm assuming it would be each player gains alignment points each time they do an act that is exemplary of the alignment. But I want to know what you all think of the idea in general.
Ex. Syrus the wizard has 3 Good points, 1 Evil point and 1 Chaotic point. He decides to "Test" a new spell on an innocent commoner, the commoner dies. The DM says Syrus gains 1 Evil point and 1 Chaotic point for this senseless murder. Syrus now has 3 Good points, 2 Evil Points and 2 Chaotic Points.

Also feel free to let me know if this idea is just terrible:smalltongue:
Thanks all!

EDIT: The Alignments with highest value dictate the players alignment. If two alignments on the same axis are equal, it is neutral.

[NemoX]

That seems like a neat idea. The whole alingment thing is a bit restrictive and unrealistic. Even IRL. Good people do bad things, and bad people can do good things. Doesn't mean they change their alignment just for that. Having a point system would make sense in that if you do certain actions too much, it would ultimately change your alignment, but allows some freedom in acting realistically.

Altho you could argue that you would essentially be playing Mass Effect's paragon/renegade game.

[Trickquestion]

This was actually the approach taken by Planescape: Torment. Befitting someone with total amnesia, the Nameless One starts the game true neutral, and swings his alignment various ways through his actions. I think it's a very sound idea.

[Telonius]

I can see a few potential problems with it. You'd have to decide how "big" of a decision it would take to earn alignment points. If it's too small, too particular, you'd have kind of the opposite effect you want: people so concerned about their alignment points that they end up playing an alignment rather than a character. On the other end, if you make what counts as a point, too "big," then you'd have a smaller sample of decisions to choose from.

You'd also have to calibrate the points. Would everything count as a single point, or are some things worth more good/evil points (or lawful/chaotic points) than others?

[Oko and Qailee]

Good people do bad things, and bad people can do good things. Doesn't mean they change their alignment just for that.

I don't think D&D actually says a single evil/good act makes an individual change alignment. Heck, the SRD even says "few people are completely consistent."

I think you're thinking of the Paladin problem a bit much.

[NemoX]

I think you're thinking of the Paladin problem a bit much.

Some DM's are harsher than others. And you gotta admit, it would help the Pally's a bit :)

[MesiDoomstalker]

Well if you do Neutral as only equal parts of either side, it becomes VERY difficult to be actually neutral. You basically have to do an Evil deed right after a good one to get Neutral on the moral axis (same for Chaos and Law). So in that respect, a non-Neutral should be more x% above the other. Like 33% more Good points than Evil. If your Good points are less than 33%, your Neutral. Something like that.

Or a sliding scale. 0 is neutral, the base. And -20 goes to Evil and 20 goes to Good. And anything above/below that doesn't change alignment but shows greater representation of Good/Evil and what not.

However, I don't particularly like this idea, at least personally. I'd feel like I'm playing Fable with an easier to understand (and manipulate) alignment system. Thing I like about DnD's alignment system is its abstract. Putting numbers to it makes it just another stat to track, not a part of the character's personality.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That seems like a neat idea. The whole alingment thing is a bit restrictive and unrealistic. Even IRL. Good people do bad things, and bad people can do good things. Doesn't mean they change their alignment just for that. Having a point system would make sense in that if you do certain actions too much, it would ultimately change your alignment, but allows some freedom in acting realistically.

Altho you could argue that you would essentially be playing Mass Effect's paragon/renegade game.

:sigh:

Alignment follows action, action does not follow alignment. Alignment is about consistent behavior, not single specific actions. The magnitude of actions necessary to shift a characters alignment in that single act is staggering; things like signing a faustian pact certain or calling down an apocalypse from the sky on a heavily populated city.

Seeing these same mistakes repeated over and over gets so tiresome.

[NemoX]

:sigh:

Alignment follows action, action does not follow alignment. Alignment is about consistent behavior, not single specific actions.

tell that to a friend of mine. He created a neutral character that was a mercenary. His who schtick was that because he didn't have any convictions of his own, he carried around a d6 in his pocket. He came up with different options for his rolls (in character) to determine what he would do when faced with certain events. As simple as "which direction to go" to determining how much he liked somebody. His life was dictated by the die.

One time there was a drow that had attacked us, and he was severely wounded so he surrendered. My buddy rolled the die to determined wether he would have pity, or no mercy. He rolled no mercy and proceeded to finish him off. My DM flipped his **** saying that was a straight up evil and was automatically changed to a different alignment. For ONE thing. That in all honestly, was not a predetermined thing, he rolled a die. It's what the die said, not him. Can he be held at fault? if he is totally governed by the die, does it make him evil to do something like that without malice? couldn't he at least get a warning?

What if the big bad manipulated your character into destroying a whole city by means of a series of events? are you evil for being taken advantaged of or tricked? a point system in that case would make sure said alignment wouldn't change for that action, because really, it shouldn't.

End of the day tho, I think it should be a case-by-case thing. But the DM makes a big difference, some are harsh, others more understanding

[Devronq]

This is similar to how never winter nights alignment system works. (Which is 3.0+3.5 based)
You basically have two numbers one determines good evil and one determines chaos lawful . I can't remember exactly how it works I think you start with 50 points in your chosen alignments and the Max you can have is 100.
So a lawful good character has 50 good points and 50 lawful points. When your good points get to zero you now have evil points (like a negative number) than can go to 100 as well. So like between 25 evil points and 25 good points ypu were neitral amything else ypu were good or evil. Lawful chaos worked the same. And different things caused different losses. So being a jerk or ripping someone off was 1 point towards evil. Murdering a commoner was 10 points towards evil. Consecutive murders caused like 20points then 30points etc. i dont remever it exactly but it was pretty xlose to how i am describing and what tou suggesyed.

[Sith_Happens]

tell that to a friend of mine. He created a neutral character that was a mercenary. His who schtick was that because he didn't have any convictions of his own, he carried around a d6 in his pocket. He came up with different options for his rolls (in character) to determine what he would do when faced with certain events. As simple as "which direction to go" to determining how much he liked somebody. His life was dictated by the die..


That's called Chaotic Stupid.

[Kelb_Panthera]

tell that to a friend of mine. He created a neutral character that was a mercenary. His who schtick was that because he didn't have any convictions of his own, he carried around a d6 in his pocket. He came up with different options for his rolls (in character) to determine what he would do when faced with certain events. As simple as "which direction to go" to determining how much he liked somebody. His life was dictated by the die.

One time there was a drow that had attacked us, and he was severely wounded so he surrendered. My buddy rolled the die to determined wether he would have pity, or no mercy. He rolled no mercy and proceeded to finish him off. My DM flipped his **** saying that was a straight up evil and was automatically changed to a different alignment. For ONE thing. That in all honestly, was not a predetermined thing, he rolled a die. It's what the die said, not him. Can he be held at fault? if he is totally governed by the die, does it make him evil to do something like that without malice? couldn't he at least get a warning?

While a die may have determined the character's actions out of character, in-character they were simply decisions made at a whim. This is definitively chaotic to the point of almost being nonsensical. Unless of course the character, in the game, actually rolled a die to determine what he would do. That would be straight up pathology; likely OCD.

In any case the end result was not a problem with the system but an interpersonal problem between that player and the DM. It got handled by a game ruling which is -not- the correct way to handle that.

That out of the way, killing a sapient creature that tried to kill you is not an evil act. It's a neutral one. Mercy is good but its absence is not evil as long as the kill is justified; justified being because of self-defense, righteous vengeance, and to prevent that creature from doing evil.



What if the big bad manipulated your character into destroying a whole city by means of a series of events? are you evil for being taken advantaged of or tricked? a point system in that case would make sure said alignment wouldn't change for that action, because really, it shouldn't.

Intent matters. If there's no way the character could have reasonably foreseen the destruction then it's not an evil act. If he knew that taking a specific action would lead to the destruction and took it anyway then it would, indeed, be evil.

Also of note is the fact that alignment only weighs the things a character does, himself, against him.


End of the day tho, I think it should be a case-by-case thing. But the DM makes a big difference, some are harsh, others more understanding

Ultimately -everything- in the game has to be filtered through the DM. Alignment has a written set of guidelines and rules to follow, however, so a DM choosing to ignore that is in houserule territory.

[Evo_Kaer]

That's called Chaotic Stupid.
Seconded. That wasn't neutral at all. Letting a die decide what you do is chaotic beyond measure.


Anyway. I'm going to try out a point alignment system in my new campaign. All players will start as neutral (maybe a bit of, depending on their background stories) and gain points just like you said. Depending on the situation and gravity of their actions they will gain more or less.

The catch though is!!! They will never know which alignment they are. This will all be kept by me and my DM buddy. That way they won't work towards playing a distinct alignment or working towards one, but actually playing their characters. And if they glow in the dark for a pally, they will only know once one hunts them down.

[CRtwenty]

I don't think it's a good idea. D&D has never been the kind of game where you can work off your atrocities by volunteering at the soup kitchen on weekends. Alignment doesn't change that easily.



One time there was a drow that had attacked us, and he was severely wounded so he surrendered. My buddy rolled the die to determined wether he would have pity, or no mercy. He rolled no mercy and proceeded to finish him off. My DM flipped his **** saying that was a straight up evil and was automatically changed to a different alignment. For ONE thing. That in all honestly, was not a predetermined thing, he rolled a die. It's what the die said, not him. Can he be held at fault? if he is totally governed by the die, does it make him evil to do something like that without malice? couldn't he at least get a warning?

That character was definitely Chaotic Neutral if not Chaotic Evil already. Remember in D&D it's actions, not intent that determine alignment. Whether he decided based on a whim or not, he still performed a grossly evil act, and likely had performed similar actions in the past.

[Drachasor]

It is probably best to not have Evil Acts be equal in magnitude to Good Acts. If killing an innocent is 10 points, then saving a life should not be worth 10 points, it should be worth something more like 1 point. That better represents how good characters need to avoid evil acts just as much as they need to perform good acts -- being good is hard. Though there are other ways to handle this.

And I'd toss in a modifier for "no mitigating circumstances" doubling the Evil points or something like that. It's one thing to kill an innocent because of some sort of "Greater Good", but it is different if you just find them annoying.

[Kudaku]

I'd be a little worried about players "banking" good points by performing numerous small good deeds and then using their "capital" to account for subsequent evil acts without experiencing an alignment shift.

[Drachasor]

I'd be a little worried about players "banking" good points by performing numerous small good deeds and then using their "capital" to account for subsequent evil acts without experiencing an alignment shift.

The easiest way to prevent that is by not counting SMALL good deeds. Those just aren't significant enough.

Another option, though slightly more artificial is to only count good deeds that matter to game. Spending off-time at a clinic and helping people out gives you nothing. Standing in the way of a charging Balor to protect a little girl you've never met does get you points, however. In other words, consider goodness requires making a tough choice, and how you spend your off-time really isn't going to be a tough choice 99% of the time.

Evil on the other hand, is something you can get anytime.

[Fouredged Sword]

What I think would be interesting is if character kept all the pools of the alignments seperate.

Say characters have 4 pools. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos. These are elemental properties of your world, a metaphysical force that people with arcane training know are intrinsic fact.

Doing acts that exemplify these alignments cause those forces to gain power.

The cool part would be that the auras would not counter each other.

So lets say that characters gain and maintain 4 pools of points. These are the metaphysical energy gained by the character. Each pool "drains" at a rate of 1 point per week. Doing a good act adds a point to the good pool. Doing an evil act adds a point to the evil pool.

If your pool is higher than 10 you ping as that alignment for detect X spells, and are in all ways treated by magic as X alignment. This allows a character who preforms lawful, good, and evil acts the be Lawful Good/Evil. Neutral characters are those who avoid these acts, rather than those who balance them vs each other.

In a large area, many people could taint an area with a general aura of good/evil/law/chaos.

Exalted characters are forced to keep their evil levels low. Vile characters must keep their good levels low. Nothing stops a good character from also being evil. They can also make choices that temporarily shift their alignment to include a descriptor for a short time before they return to normal (all those priests going on religious retreat so the evil leaves their bodies)

[Person_Man]

I generally dislike such systems in video games. In particular, Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect. Because certain story outcomes were based on your alignment score, there was a very strong incentive to play as pure Good/Lawful/Paragon once and then play a second time as pure Evil/Chaotic/Renegade, even if it doesn't otherwise make sense for your character or the story. Otherwise, you ended up missing a lot of game content unless you played through everything at least three times (or you could remember every decision you made the first time, and just made the opposite decision the next time).

Having said that, I could see how it would be interesting in a real life game. You may wish to consider looking at Aspects and Fate Points (http://www.faterpg.com/dl/df/aspects.html) or Pendragon Traits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon_%28role-playing_game%29). They add an in-game cost and benefit to tracking alignment-ish based decisions.

[Kudaku]

The easiest way to prevent that is by not counting SMALL good deeds. Those just aren't significant enough.

So what constitutes a small and a large good deed? Wouldn't that shift as the character levels up?


Another option, though slightly more artificial is to only count good deeds that matter to game. Spending off-time at a clinic and helping people out gives you nothing. Standing in the way of a charging Balor to protect a little girl you've never met does get you points, however. In other words, consider goodness requires making a tough choice, and how you spend your off-time really isn't going to be a tough choice 99% of the time.

Conversely if you follow this model a lot of traditionally "good-aligned" characters would suddenly be neutral.