Pin down [Alignment]

[Yenek]

I've found an interesting idea on this link: http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2h8hn8/can_we_make_a_better_model_for_the_goodevil_x/ckqi1m3



What about decreasing the degree of abstraction? Pick out four qualities for each compass point and rate them to five. Add them up and go neutral if someone is less than eight either way. Give me a bit to get to a comp.

Edit: Okay, here we go.

Subdivide each compass point into unique traits:

Good -> Generosity, Patience, Loyalty

Chaos -> Curiosity, Anarchy, Wanderlust

Evil -> Sadism, Greed, Hatred

Law -> Discipline, Respect, Communalism

(I'm using easy words, Patience is kinda Tolerance also for instance. Pride is low Patience high Hatred.)

Give each trait five points. Then add up Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. Opposing alignments subtract. If the score is below two either way, they are neutral. This is kinda low for two reasons: One is that PCs tend to fall or rise hard. The other is that it allows for tragic flaw type characters very easily.

For instance, your stereotypical LG dwarf would be:

Good 9 (Generosity 2, Patience 4, Loyalty 4)
Chaos 3 (Curiosity 2, Anarchy 0, Wanderlust 1)
Evil 6 (Sadism 0, Greed 3, Hatred 3)
Law 11 (Discipline 5, Respect 2, Communalism 4)

So that is Good +3, Law +8. A more good-aligned dwarf could have less hatred or greed and higher loyalty or generosity.

Best part is that it kinda kills alignment arguments if you write out a qualitative scale.

"I'm good!"

"Then fill out the chart."

"..."

"What did you get?"

"A 4 in Loyalty!"

"..."

"...Evil 4 overall. Shut up."


Thoughts? Improvements?

[Red Fel]

I've found an interesting idea on this link: http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2h8hn8/can_we_make_a_better_model_for_the_goodevil_x/ckqi1m3



Thoughts? Improvements?

I'd recharacterize the Evil traits - the terms are too negatively charged. (No pun intended.) Frankly, so is at least one of the Chaos traits (Anarchy carries a slightly negative charge). Evil characters are not, by default, mustache-twirling villains. They have motivations, the same as any other character. I would use words like Pragmatism, Power, and Desire, for example. Alternatively, make two of the three terms for each alignment point positive, and one negative. For example, Chaos could be "Freedom, Curiosity, Anarchy," Law could be "Honor, Tradition, Stagnation," Evil could be "Power, Desire, Superiority," and Good could be "Generosity, Compassion, Sacrifice."

That said, this is all good and well as an abstract exercise, but what's the point? If it's to tell players what alignment they're supposed to write on their character sheets, you have to decide if you're okay with the idea of telling players what alignment they're supposed to write on their character sheets. It's one thing to watch a PC in action and say, "No, murdering those orphans because you didn't like how they looked was not the conduct of an LG character, I expect you to change that," it's quite another to say "I don't believe your character will be LG, change that before we start." Some people (and some settings) are okay with pre-screening alignments like that, but other people (and settings) presume that you at least trust your players to know what they're writing on their sheets.

[Sartharina]

What is this thread trying to do?

[Yenek]

Split up the axes (axises?) (technically, their component rays) into less ambiguous subunits.

[Grey Watcher]

What is this thread trying to do?

I think the OP is trying to develop a system that lets you quantify alignment, so that you have a better guide to go by than "You're not Lawful Good anymore because the DM said so."

That said, I think, rather than starting off with the adjectives, your better off starting off by defining what, in the game, defines Evil, Good, Law, and Chaos.

Is Evil merely selfishness? Is it a willingness to hurt others to achieve your goals? Is it enjoyment of other people's suffering?

Is Goodness a willingness to suffer injury, pain, setbacks, or even death? An unwillingness to see others suffer such things? Who gets to define what constitutes suffering? Whose suffering matters?

Is Law adherence to a routine? Deference to an authority? Belief in a cosmic order?

Does Chaos mean you must defy all authority all the time? Does internal consistency count?

Is Neutrality merely the absence of the above? Can you be actively Neutral? What would that imply?

In my experience, everyone has their own unique set of answers to these questions, so any attempt to regularize and codify alignment is going to have issues being applied to anyone other than the creator of the system.

[Sartharina]

The best way to pin down Alignment is to recognize that it's an Alignment, not Personality. It's what cause(s) your life exemplifies and defends.

[Tragak]

The best way to pin down Alignment is to recognize that it's an Alignment, not Personality. It's what cause(s) your life exemplifies and defends. Same here. I see Alignment as "what you want" vs. Personality as "how you get it."

[ElenionAncalima]

Best part is that it kinda kills alignment arguments if you write out a qualitative scale.

"I'm good!"

"Then fill out the chart."



I don't know that this would prevent any alignment arguments. I think it would just make the arguments more granular.

"I have a 6 in loyalty!"
"No you don't, remember that time you made fun of Steve?"
"Teasing someone isn't disloyalty!"
"But it was behind his back!"

...and so on and so forth.

If anything, it could make arguments more tedious because there are now twelve traits in contention instead of four.

Also, while I don't specifically have an issue with the using qualities to define the character, I am not sure I see the benefit of compressing the information back into an alignment.Take the dwarf example, for instance.


Good 9 (Generosity 2, Patience 4, Loyalty 4)
Chaos 3 (Curiosity 2, Anarchy 0, Wanderlust 1)
Evil 6 (Sadism 0, Greed 3, Hatred 3)
Law 11 (Discipline 5, Respect 2, Communalism 4)

So that is Good +3, Law +8.


I can see the benefit of the breakdown. A character who is patient and loyal with his companions, but rigid in his beliefs and predjudices and has a weakness for coin is a lot more interesting that "Lawful Good Dwarf". But what is the benefit of taking all that information and reducing it back down to "Lawful Good Dwarf...emphasis on lawful"?

[Tragak]

I can see the benefit of the breakdown. A character who is patient and loyal with his companions, but rigid in his beliefs and predjudices and has a weakness for coin is a lot more interesting that "Lawful Good Dwarf". But what is the benefit of taking all that information and reducing it back down to "Lawful Good Dwarf...emphasis on lawful"? Probably the same benefit as taking a character's choice of Favored Enemies, her choice of Combat Style, her choice of Animal Companion, her choice of Skill Ranks, her most common choices of Spells from day to day… and then "reducing" it back down to Ranger.

[Velaryon]

I'd recharacterize the Evil traits - the terms are too negatively charged. (No pun intended.) Frankly, so is at least one of the Chaos traits (Anarchy carries a slightly negative charge). Evil characters are not, by default, mustache-twirling villains. They have motivations, the same as any other character. I would use words like Pragmatism, Power, and Desire, for example. Alternatively, make two of the three terms for each alignment point positive, and one negative. For example, Chaos could be "Freedom, Curiosity, Anarchy," Law could be "Honor, Tradition, Stagnation," Evil could be "Power, Desire, Superiority," and Good could be "Generosity, Compassion, Sacrifice."

I see where you're coming from on that, but I think "Stagnation" is an even more negatively charged word than "Anarchy."

[Ettina]

Same here. I see Alignment as "what you want" vs. Personality as "how you get it."

"I want a nice comfortable life."

"I will get it by ruthlessly murdering anyone who interferes with that."

Something wrong with your breakdown there, I think.

[TandemChelipeds]

I don't know that this would prevent any alignment arguments. I think it would just make the arguments more granular.

"I have a 6 in loyalty!"
"No you don't, remember that time you made fun of Steve?"
"Teasing someone isn't disloyalty!"
"But it was behind his back!"

...and so on and so forth.

If anything, it could make arguments more tedious because there are now twelve traits in contention instead of four.

Also, while I don't specifically have an issue with the using qualities to define the character, I am not sure I see the benefit of compressing the information back into an alignment.Take the dwarf example, for instance.

This, and Loyalty's more of a Lawful trait than a Good one anyway.