Alternative to Alignment system

[Mongobear]

I am trying to find a way to get rid of the normal 3x3 alignment grid of traditional D&D games, without completely opening up the ability for a PC to create the most Bi-Polar flip-flopping character imaginable.

My original idea was to try and use a system similar the the ones in KotOR 1/2, and Jade Empire, however when discussing the system with a few of the players, they pointed out that simply measuring Good/Evil and leaving Law/Chaos out of it creates several issues as well.

My intent was the have alignment be more of a "Disposition and Morality" tool as opposed to "Ambiguous Measurement of Divinity" and honestly, I am of the opinion that the 3x3 system does not account for the many grey areas between each of the original alignments. In my opinion, the grid should be atleast 6x6, probably 9x9 in all honestly so that all of the many grey areas and realms of moral decisions can be properly accounted for, but that just inflates the problem even more.

Are there any homebrew or alternative methods out there that I could use? I am looking for something easy to keep track of and not a mind-numbing chore to have to change, that allows players to not be pigeon-holed into Lawful Good Captain Sunshine, or Chaotic Evil General KILLMAIMBURN!!!11!!

What I'm hoping for is more of a measure of how the character views the world and responds to it, sort of a Disposition/Personality meter. (I know Personality is more of a RP thing, but I want a Paladin to still be capable of making slightly questionable choices, but as long as they still maintain an overall "good" moral compass, they won't fall.)

A good example is say Nicholas Cage's character in the movie "Season of the Witch" where he was a Crusader fighting for God, who was ordered to kill an entire Muslim village, however when he entered the village and saw there was nothing but women and children, he refused to draw blood and was stripped of his rank and knighthood. However because he maintained his moral beliefs, he continued fighting for what he believed in and still completely followed his teachings although he was cast out.

[OldTrees1]

Have you considered using the alignment system? No, really it is more detailed and diverse than you give it credit for. An alignment is not a personality. Thousands of different personalities fit in each alignment. As long as the personality is defined before selecting an alignment, you should easily avoid "Lawful Good Captain Sunshine", and "Chaotic Evil General KILLMAIMBURN!!!11!!".

Nicholas Cage's character for instance is motivated by a set of teachings. These manifested as a code of honor. Going from your example, I would assign this character the LN alignment.

However if you feel the alignment system is too small you could expand it to
5x5, 7x7, or 13x13

GvE axis 5x5: Exalted, Good, Neutral, Evil Vile
GvE axis 7x7: Good, neutral leaning good, good leaning neutral, Neutral, evil leaning neutral, neutral leaning evil, Evil
GvE axis 13x13:
Exalted, good leaning Exalted, exalted leaning Good, Good, neutral leaning good, good leaning neutral, Neutral, evil leaning neutral, neutral leaning evil, Evil, vile leaning Evil, evil leaning Vile, Vile

[Chester]

Check out this old post from the forms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177).

Honestly, though, we used it briefly, then went back to traditional D&D alignment. Listen to OldTrees1; D&D alignment need not be so black & white.

[Yanisa]

I always liked the Order of the Stick for being able to to portray multiple lawful good characters with various personalities. From the horrible cliche played paladin with stick up its ass (Miko) to the group leader why tries to be both good and lawful but is often influenced by emotions (Roy). If you try to use it by the books it may be unusable, but if you don't value it too strictly and see it more as guidelines then truth it works decently.

I do offer another system, Real Alignments (http://www.easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), which is based on motivations of character rather then actions of characters. I liked the idea, although never used it.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah OOTS is great in how it portrays alignment.


I do offer another system, Real Alignments (http://www.easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), which is based on motivations of character rather then actions of characters. I liked the idea, although never used it.

Yeah this is a very good way to look at alignment. I especially appreciate how it makes realistic evil characters possible.

[gadren]

I've been playing D&D for over twenty years now, and have steadily grown more and more annoyed with the alignment system, particularly in 3E/3.5/PF. It isn't so bad in older editions and 4th edition (Though 4E's alignment annoys me for different reasons), because there were fewer mechanical aspects tied to your alignment. I really don't think that alignment should be a requirement for any non-divine class, with maybe some rare exceptions.

Alignment also tends to spawn alignment arguments. You've seen them before. Three people will argue strongly that character x behaves LN, while three more will argue that X is NE, and then there is probably at least one guy who argues that X is CG.

I'm currently playing a character in a PF game where I haven't declared his alignment. I honestly don't know how I should categorize him, and I've just told the DM that if my alignment becomes relevant to a spell he casts on me or something, he can decide what I am based on my RP.

[Keneth]

We use "Real Alignments" as linked in the post above. We've largely done away with alignments though. Even paladins and antipaladins can go around adventuring with others of opposite alignment without any risk of falling. Aside from outsiders representing the absolutes, alignment in mortals merely represents a different outlook on life.

[137beth]

Maginomicon fleshed out the Real Alignments some more (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341), which is something to take a look at.

Another alignment system to take a look at is Methods vs Motives (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273546).

And finally, if you're really tired of it, Tuggyne's alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274370) works too.

[Slipperychicken]

I want a Paladin to still be capable of making slightly questionable choices, but as long as they still maintain an overall "good" moral compass, they won't fall.)

Perhaps clerics, druids, paladins (plus other characters whose power comes from worship, servitude, or adherence to ideals) would get a subsystem to represent the fact they have some degree of leeway?

One idea is to have a point-system of moral flexibility, and a character of those classes who gets too many points (probably a small number like 5) will lose access to his powers and need to repent somehow (usually by doing some kind of service fitting to his violations). A really minor breach of conduct (like lying to an authority figure to save innocents) might earn 1 point which wears off after a day. Something more questionable (like mercy-killing someone who had a chance to survive, or stealing a needed item) would get 3 points and take weeks to wear off. Only a truly outrageous violation (like murdering a person to loot his corpse) would automatically fall the character.

Each class would, of course, define violations differently (they have different ideals, after all). For example, a Cleric of Asmodeus would have different restrictions than a Paladin. A Druid's restrictions would prioritize reverence to nature (trampling flowers might be a 1-point violation for a Druid), while a servant of some war-god would might emphasize victory and honor (perhaps making surrender a 5-point violation for him).

Maybe one could even weave such a system into a broader karma meter/alignment system?

[Vhaidara]

while a servant of some war-god would might emphasize victory and honor (perhaps making surrender a 5-point violation for him).

For some reason, I imagine once the follower has too many points, an angel descends from on high and confiscates their worshiper license. Like a traffic violation, but with a god.

[NoACWarrior]

If you are looking for a gradient of good -> evil, you can use taint as that gradient.

Heroes of Horror alternatively states that detect taint is a BETTER way to find if a PC or NPC did an evil act (or was privy to evil dealings) instead of detect alignment. If you detect evil on an evil character who hasn't done evil in the past x days, then detect evil will fail.

While I've been playing around with taint as an indicator, and temporary taint for the detect evil bits, I haven't found a good way to illustrate law vs chaos. Maybe use the same taint system, instead using different points for "entropy".

The color scheme above in the link is nice because its not like you can't work together for a common goal.

[Slipperychicken]

For some reason, I imagine once the follower has too many points, an angel descends from on high and confiscates their worshiper license. Like a traffic violation, but with a god.

Yeah, the similarity occurred to me while I was writing it. I'm sure there's a better word somewhere.

It kind of fits my personal canon, though. In my mind, I just extrapolate the Paladin Code's rigidity to a whole celestial bureaucracy which has to deal with prayers, miracles, atonements, audit paladins, process afterlife-change requests, judge mortal souls, and so on. Your user ID in the system, of course, is your truename (which is essentially a unique unpronounceable number to identify your soul), and if you lose that, you're pretty much boned. Also, judgement day is basically a quarterly review for the whole material plane.

[Frozen_Feet]

One alternative is what I call "goals and objectives".

Each session, a player writes down three objectives for their character. During the session, the GM tracks how well a character follows stated goals.

Depending on objectives followed or achieved, the character gains full, two-thirds, one-third or no experience, respectively.

A Paladin's code, for example, already lists some possible objectives. Each session, a player might have to choose which three to give precedence to. They might choose:


respect legitimate authority
help those in need
punish those who threaten innocents


Disobeying one or two might cost them some experience, as long as they adhere to at least one. But they might lose their class abilities if they disobey all three in a situation. A situation might also arise where following one will disallow another (for example, a legitimate authority might order a Paladin to not continue pursuing a criminal, in which case a decision must be made between mutually exclusive objectives.)

[TuggyNE]

I've long thought d20 Modern's idea of allegiances is rather better; you pick several entities or sometimes concepts to which you're dedicated, and then most alignment-y things go off that. This rather neatly describes patriots, zealots, family defenders, and so on.


And finally, if you're really tired of it, Tuggyne's alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274370) works too.

Truly some of my best work. :smallamused:

[Gwaednerth]

I usually think in terms of multiple scales. For instance, you could have an evil wizard who is plotting world domination (LE on a large scale) but intends to do so by creating havoc in the capital city (CE middle scale) but when he is experimenting with chaos magic to do so, he is orderly and scientific (LN small scale)
Or, an antihero type who wants to save the world and defend his freedom (CG) but is ruthless and systematic in doing it (LE) except when it comes to friends and family (NG)
These are, admittedly, extreme examples but the gist is gotten.

[MadGreenSon]

Inspired by Planescape, I tend toward more nuanced alignments, as exemplified by the Great Wheel of the Planes:

Bytopia: Neutral Good (Lawful): Goodness given more weight than order/law but order/law is till a major factor
Celetisia: Lawful Good (Absolute) both order/law and goodness values in equal measure
Arcadia: Lawful (Neutral) Good: order/law given more weight than goodness, but good is still a major factor
Mechanus: Lawful Neutral (Absolute): Order/law has primacy over all other concerns, even to an utterly alien and incomprehensible extent.

and so on and so forth

I use the Law/Chaos axis as extensively as the Good/Evil one and shade alignments accordingly.

Alignment can be a very flexible tool if you stop think of it as instructions and instead think of it as a description.

[Mongobear]

My main issue with the base definitions of the RAW alignment is that they are too vague to truely accomodate any real grey areas between one another. A person of one alignment is defined as an absolute paragon of that ideal, in my interpretation of the brief descriptions in the PHB.

I have read most of everyones links to alternative alignment systems, and I really like the "Real Alignments" and the expanded "Real ALignments Handbook" which took it several staircases further. The problem is that while several of my players agree it was a very well written and better representation of how alignments should be, it was such a long read, that they had trouble fully comprehending its' entirety.

I also had the idea of using the system from the NWN2 games, which measures each axis on pair of 1-100 scales (1-30 being Good or Lawful, 31-70 being neutral, and 71-100 being Evil or Chaotic). However I ran into an issue of how to objectively quantify a good/evil or lawful/chaotic deed between extremes of severity.

Example: The rogue of my group is strolling along through a busy market of a foreign city shes never been to before, minding her own business for the most part. However she comes to a cart selling various jewelry and one broach catches her eye immediately. She inquires about the price, but it is way out of her price range. Attempting to haggle with the merchant, he blurts out a minor insult about her race/gender/etc and she then punches him square in the nose, grabs the broach and disappears into the crowd.

Now obviously this is rather chaotic, and slightly evil, although personally it may seem justified because of the oafs rudeness. However as the PC is already Chaotic Neutral, approximately 90,50 on the axis scale, and had established shes a little bit of a clepto, I have been lenient on the Chaotic slides due to her constant five-finger coupons. But the assault, as well intended as it was, mandated I assign a few evil points out of necessity. I assign a shift of 5 evil points, bringing her alignment to 85,45, still well within the realms of Chaotic Neutral, and probably not mechanically different than she was before.


Extreme Example: Same scenario as above up until the oaf of a merchant blurts the insult at our Rogue. Not even thinking about the rationality of it, the rogue whips out her dagger and slits the mans throat, killing him instantly, and then steals the broach. Still making her escape into the busy crowd before anyone truely notices what just transpired in the few seconds it took for the man's blood to begin spreading over for wares.

Now this is obviously a heinous crime, and extremely evil, especially since aside from a few petty thefts, she has yet to ever really go this far as a character. I assign her a full shift of 25 points, bringing her to 85/25 well within the range of Chaotic Evil.


My problem with this was brought up by a player from another group making an observation: Is punching a loudmouth is the nose and stealing his jewelry 5 times really as evil as murdering him in cold-blood? Any sane person would probably say theres no way that is even possible to be within the same ball-park.

So, how do I quantify these alignment shift, without making them so trivial that it would take years of actual game time for them to add up, but still keeping them meaningful enough that I dont end up with a system where 3 Aggravated Assault = 1 2nd Degree Murder?

[Tengu_temp]

I am trying to find a way to get rid of the normal 3x3 alignment grid of traditional D&D games, without completely opening up the ability for a PC to create the most Bi-Polar flip-flopping character imaginable.


Non-DND RPGs seem to manage this just fine. Most of them don't use anything like alignments.

[Telonius]

This take (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828) has always been a favorite of mine (though I'd say the Monk's third-axis alignment restriction shouldn't be there).



My problem with this was brought up by a player from another group making an observation: Is punching a loudmouth is the nose and stealing his jewelry 5 times really as evil as murdering him in cold-blood? Any sane person would probably say theres no way that is even possible to be within the same ball-park.

So, how do I quantify these alignment shift, without making them so trivial that it would take years of actual game time for them to add up, but still keeping them meaningful enough that I dont end up with a system where 3 Aggravated Assault = 1 2nd Degree Murder?

Possible solution: don't treat the Alignment system as though it were a retributive system of justice. Treat it as measuring how likely it is they'll end up in (whatever aligned plane) after death. It's about general tendencies, repeated actions, and direction. If somebody is a habitual mugger, that's an ingrained pattern. Their destination in the afterlife is about as certain as somebody who's a murderer. If the aligned plane has some sort of hierarchy, where how evil your acts were in life determines how good or awful of an afterlife you'd have, that's up to the plane in question.

[GGambrel]

I also had the idea of using the system from the NWN2 games, which measures each axis on pair of 1-100 scales (1-30 being Good or Lawful, 31-70 being neutral, and 71-100 being Evil or Chaotic). However I ran into an issue of how to objectively quantify a good/evil or lawful/chaotic deed between extremes of severity.
...
So, how do I quantify these alignment shift, without making them so trivial that it would take years of actual game time for them to add up, but still keeping them meaningful enough that I dont end up with a system where 3 Aggravated Assault = 1 2nd Degree Murder?

This is essentially the system I am using in my current campaign :smallsmile:, though I have Lawful and Good as the high end of the scale. Unfortunately I've been pretty lax with implementing alignment shifts lately.

The way I determine the size of the shifts is by trying to determine the alignment of a person who would typically take the PC's recent actions. Based on the difference between this "Action Alignment" and the PC's current alignment, the PC has Xd6 points added or subtracted from his/her current alignment. (Here X = Difference/10 rounded down. If X=0 after rounding, use something smaller than 1d6, perhaps a "1d3" or +/-1.) I prefer to have some randomness in there to help keep myself impartial. I combine actions that happen in quick succession (or as part of an encounter) into one "Action Alignment" to prevent it from taking forever.

Note: I distinguish the alignment scores here from the PC's actual alignment. The PC's alignment is determined by the player. I prefer to think of the points themselves as a measure of the alignment they have been behaving. I use the points rather than true alignment for pretty much all game mechanics though.

Thoughts?