Rusvul
2017-09-11, 01:08 AM
As a 5th edition DM, I have no mechanical incentive to rewrite the alignment system, since 5e runs just fine without alignment. However, I’m writing up a homebrew setting at the moment, and I wanted to incorporate a few principles into some of my planes. I thought it would be interesting to reframe the conflicts between demons and devils, the seelie and the unseelie, the Darklords of the shadowfell, and so on. I’m… not sure how well I’ve done in building a system that does that, but if nothing else, I think I’ve stripped out some of the judgement from the traditional alignment system, and I’d like to think I’ve added a layer of nuance. I’ve borrowed fairly heavily from Xuldarinar’s Method/Motive alignment idea, and the ideas someone (or several someones? I’m not sure) had about a third “Active/Passive” axis, as well as “Real Alignment” have been fairly influential too.
The most significant alteration I’ve made, in my mind at least, is that this is a subjective alignment, rather than an objective one. It is not based on how a character fits into the cosmic balance of inscrutable universal forces of good and evil, rather, this system is based on a character’s beliefs, how they see themselves and the world around them. To that end, I’ve more-or-less split the Moral axis into two, and narrowed the Ethical access to be more specific than the ill-defined (and thus controversial) concepts of Law and Chaos. Hence, the ‘Triple-M’ alignment system - Motive, Method, and Mores. (Yes, I know that’s a rather off use of the word ‘mores,’ but… ‘triple-M is very catchy, alright?)
Anyway. Enough introduction. This is what I have thus far.
The first axis, Motive, maps most closely to the Moral axis of a traditional alignment chart, though it is a loose comparison at best. A character’s Motive is what drives them to do what they do. Note that there is no ‘neutral’ option - something drives everyone, and I think for most people (myself included) that ‘something’ is egoism.
Altruistic characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance or protect others, generally those who cannot help themselves.
Dedicated characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance a specific cause other than themselves or others. Their cause could be an organization, a personal crusade, or the well-being of a specific individual - it matters little.
Egoistic characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance themselves.
The second axis, Method, also maps most closely to the Moral axis, though again it is not an exceedingly accurate comparison. A character’s Method is what deeds they deem acceptable in pursuit of their goal. This may or may not correlate to what they believe is right - a paladin might deem it acceptable to commit acts of torture if it is necessary for the greater good, even if they see torture as a damnably evil thing to do.
Pacifistic characters do not believe it is acceptable to harm anyone to advance their goals.
Nonmaleficent characters do not believe it is acceptable to harm those they see as innocent in order to advance their goals.
Maleficent characters believe it is acceptable to harm even those they see as innocent in order to advance their goals.
The third axis, Mores, maps fairly well to the Ethical axis of a traditional alignment chart, though it is more specific. A character’s Mores (or, more accurately, their view on the mores of the society or societies that surround them) is how they perceive society, and whether or not they have a desire to fit into it. Note that, again, there is no middle ground - a character either wants to fit into a society or they do not. (Whether or not they actually do fit in is, of course, beside the point.)
Conformist characters believe it is generally best to work within the social order.
Individualistic characters believe it is generally best to work outside of the social order, or do not care at all about the social order and act without regard for it.
Now, for some examples. I’ll use Order of the Stick characters, because 1) they mostly have traditional alignments attached to them, and 2) I think we’re most likely all fairly familiar with them. While I have tried to make my categories broad and simple enough that most characters should fit into them fairly well, the problem with a subjective alignment system is that, since I can only look at the OotS cast's actions, and not their motivations or thoughts, I am in the position of guessing what they think and believe. It is my hope that any disagreement over a character's alignment can be traced back to differences in opinion about that character's beliefs, rather than which category a character's beliefs fit into, but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me.
Roy is Altruistic/Nonmaleficent/Conformist. He fights primarily for the good of others, he avoids harming those who live peaceful lives if at all possible, and he tries to abide by the social order of whatever society he is in unless it is counter to his goals.
Belkar is Egoistic/Maleficent/Individualistic. He does what he wants, when he wants, because he wants to do it, regardless of who it hurts. He will work within a social order when it suits him, but rejects it the instant it is inconvenient.
Miko is something of a complicated case, but I’d say she is Dedicated/Maleficent/Conformist. She is wholly (even selflessly) devoted to her career as a paladin, though I think to say she does what she does to aid others is grossly mistaken. Though she put forward a face of nonmaleficence, I think she displayed a distinctly ‘end justifies the means’ attitude towards the end of her life. She also strongly values social and personal order, even if she deviated from that. I think if I were Miko’s player (or writer) I could more accurately pin her down, as I could speak with authority about her motivations and innermost beliefs - there is something of a disconnect between Miko’s deeds, her beliefs, and the beliefs she displays to the world.
Haley is, as far as I can tell, Altruistic/Nonmaleficent/Individualistic. If we are to assume her perceived greed is solely for her father’s benefit, then she is Altruistic. Otherwise, you could make a case for her to be Egoistic. Either way, she seems to place little value on social order, and I would presume she is unwilling to hurt innocents (though I cannot think of an instance in which she has avoided doing so when it would be conducive to her goals to cause a little havoc).
TL;DR: Three alignment axes: Motive, Method, and Mores.
I’m not entirely certain how well this represents all characters, nor am I certain it isn’t cripplingly flawed. One thought I had was adding an axis related to one’s personal code (since that is the other most commonly referenced aspect of a Lawful alignment), but I’m wary of overcomplicating things. Sorry for the wall of text, and apologies if I've repeated myself - this was not written all at once. If anyone has thoughts on this, I’d be glad to hear them!
The most significant alteration I’ve made, in my mind at least, is that this is a subjective alignment, rather than an objective one. It is not based on how a character fits into the cosmic balance of inscrutable universal forces of good and evil, rather, this system is based on a character’s beliefs, how they see themselves and the world around them. To that end, I’ve more-or-less split the Moral axis into two, and narrowed the Ethical access to be more specific than the ill-defined (and thus controversial) concepts of Law and Chaos. Hence, the ‘Triple-M’ alignment system - Motive, Method, and Mores. (Yes, I know that’s a rather off use of the word ‘mores,’ but… ‘triple-M is very catchy, alright?)
Anyway. Enough introduction. This is what I have thus far.
The first axis, Motive, maps most closely to the Moral axis of a traditional alignment chart, though it is a loose comparison at best. A character’s Motive is what drives them to do what they do. Note that there is no ‘neutral’ option - something drives everyone, and I think for most people (myself included) that ‘something’ is egoism.
Altruistic characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance or protect others, generally those who cannot help themselves.
Dedicated characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance a specific cause other than themselves or others. Their cause could be an organization, a personal crusade, or the well-being of a specific individual - it matters little.
Egoistic characters are those who are primarily motivated to advance themselves.
The second axis, Method, also maps most closely to the Moral axis, though again it is not an exceedingly accurate comparison. A character’s Method is what deeds they deem acceptable in pursuit of their goal. This may or may not correlate to what they believe is right - a paladin might deem it acceptable to commit acts of torture if it is necessary for the greater good, even if they see torture as a damnably evil thing to do.
Pacifistic characters do not believe it is acceptable to harm anyone to advance their goals.
Nonmaleficent characters do not believe it is acceptable to harm those they see as innocent in order to advance their goals.
Maleficent characters believe it is acceptable to harm even those they see as innocent in order to advance their goals.
The third axis, Mores, maps fairly well to the Ethical axis of a traditional alignment chart, though it is more specific. A character’s Mores (or, more accurately, their view on the mores of the society or societies that surround them) is how they perceive society, and whether or not they have a desire to fit into it. Note that, again, there is no middle ground - a character either wants to fit into a society or they do not. (Whether or not they actually do fit in is, of course, beside the point.)
Conformist characters believe it is generally best to work within the social order.
Individualistic characters believe it is generally best to work outside of the social order, or do not care at all about the social order and act without regard for it.
Now, for some examples. I’ll use Order of the Stick characters, because 1) they mostly have traditional alignments attached to them, and 2) I think we’re most likely all fairly familiar with them. While I have tried to make my categories broad and simple enough that most characters should fit into them fairly well, the problem with a subjective alignment system is that, since I can only look at the OotS cast's actions, and not their motivations or thoughts, I am in the position of guessing what they think and believe. It is my hope that any disagreement over a character's alignment can be traced back to differences in opinion about that character's beliefs, rather than which category a character's beliefs fit into, but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me.
Roy is Altruistic/Nonmaleficent/Conformist. He fights primarily for the good of others, he avoids harming those who live peaceful lives if at all possible, and he tries to abide by the social order of whatever society he is in unless it is counter to his goals.
Belkar is Egoistic/Maleficent/Individualistic. He does what he wants, when he wants, because he wants to do it, regardless of who it hurts. He will work within a social order when it suits him, but rejects it the instant it is inconvenient.
Miko is something of a complicated case, but I’d say she is Dedicated/Maleficent/Conformist. She is wholly (even selflessly) devoted to her career as a paladin, though I think to say she does what she does to aid others is grossly mistaken. Though she put forward a face of nonmaleficence, I think she displayed a distinctly ‘end justifies the means’ attitude towards the end of her life. She also strongly values social and personal order, even if she deviated from that. I think if I were Miko’s player (or writer) I could more accurately pin her down, as I could speak with authority about her motivations and innermost beliefs - there is something of a disconnect between Miko’s deeds, her beliefs, and the beliefs she displays to the world.
Haley is, as far as I can tell, Altruistic/Nonmaleficent/Individualistic. If we are to assume her perceived greed is solely for her father’s benefit, then she is Altruistic. Otherwise, you could make a case for her to be Egoistic. Either way, she seems to place little value on social order, and I would presume she is unwilling to hurt innocents (though I cannot think of an instance in which she has avoided doing so when it would be conducive to her goals to cause a little havoc).
TL;DR: Three alignment axes: Motive, Method, and Mores.
I’m not entirely certain how well this represents all characters, nor am I certain it isn’t cripplingly flawed. One thought I had was adding an axis related to one’s personal code (since that is the other most commonly referenced aspect of a Lawful alignment), but I’m wary of overcomplicating things. Sorry for the wall of text, and apologies if I've repeated myself - this was not written all at once. If anyone has thoughts on this, I’d be glad to hear them!