New alignments (Vile, Anarchic, etc)

[faceroll]

I once saw a thread about adding alignments to represent the extreme polarity that exists in planar creatures, and was wondering if anyone knew where it was. I really liked the idea and am mulling over adding it to my games.

The gist was that things of exceptional evil, like an outsider or the most depraved of mortals would have an alignment a step beyond evil- Vile. Same with law, chaos, and good. It added a more granularity.

[Tengu_temp]

Eh, what we need is less alignments, not more.

[faceroll]

Eh, what we need is less alignments, not more.

Super helpful!!!

[Marnath]

I know what you're talking about, but I can't remember which poster came up with it.

[Tengu_temp]

You asked for opinions, didn't you? I really mean it. Those new alignments add nothing to the game other than one more thing to keep track of.

EDIT: Huh, I can't read. Lemme look it up then.

[DragonOfUndeath]

wasn't it that 10-step alignment system?

[sonofzeal]

Was it the one in my sig, by any chance?

[faceroll]

Was it the one in my sig, by any chance?

Yep!
That's it!
Thanks mang.

You asked for opinions, didn't you? I really mean it. Those new alignments add nothing to the game other than one more thing to keep track of.

EDIT: Huh, I can't read. Lemme look it up then.

A lot of the mechanics hinge on alignment. I feel that adding a little more nuance to the mechanics would allow me to both have a neutral evil thief in the party but have him be distinct from the neutral vile villain they face. Mechanically, by the RAW, a rogue that killed a couple guys for money in cold blood is just as evil as Vecna (well, I guess as an evil outsider, Vecna might be hurt by a handful of spells a little more strongly).

[The Glyphstone]

Eh, if we're going to add more alignments, I'd rather see Square and Funky than more granularity in good/evil and law/chaos.

[WinceRind]

Eh, what we need is less alignments, not more.

I agree fully. The nine we already got are flawed and a pain in the arse at most times, especially if you consider them seriously, there's no reason for other ones.

And not to get into philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I reckon some extra-planar race of godly planet eaters is beyond regular morality. It's awfully human (or elf-, or whatever-) centric to even try to apply human(oid) morality to beings that more or less equal or otherwise resemble Cthulhu.

[World Eater]

The only alignments we need are:

Kind
Neutral
Grumpy

[Tyndmyr]

I will once again lobby for sane/crazy and loves/hates pie.

Some believe the above are redundant, as no sane person could possibly hate pie. However, I believe there probably are crazed pie lovers somewhere out there.

Otherwise, nah...more granularity leads to more possible disagreement. Alignment arguments are generally a waste of gaming time as is. The only reason I still include alignment at all in games is due to effects that target it, and that reason is...just barely enough atm.

[Callista]

Alignment is a useful part of D&D, but there's really not that much need to make extra mechanics out of it. We could probably do fine with a single Good/Neutral/Evil alignment system; but the benefit of the two-axis system is that it allows you to differentiate between equally Good characters like Robin Hood and Sir Galahad, who have very different personalities; or characters like Inspector Javert and Jack Sparrow (equally neutral) or Darth Vader and the Joker (equally Evil).

Diminishing returns kick in pretty quickly, though. I can't really see how adding more slots along the two axes would allow enough extra detail to justify complicating things. There just aren't that many characters who would fit into the extreme slots. Characters like the Joker (Vile) are really only extreme versions of run-of-the-mill Evil characters (Draco Malfoy, for example), and that's only a problem for people who think alignment defines a character and that all characters of a certain alignment are alike.

I think we have enough recognition for that kind of thing in the BoED and BoVD (though I'll admit some of that stuff needs to be re-flavored)--there's no need to revamp the entire alignment system just because a few characters are extreme expressions of alignments.

[Marnath]

I don't advocate making alignment more complicated than it needs to be, but if I was going to, I'd use this. It looks promising.

[faceroll]

Alignment is a useful part of D&D, but there's really not that much need to make extra mechanics out of it. We could probably do fine with a single Good/Neutral/Evil alignment system; but the benefit of the two-axis system is that it allows you to differentiate between equally Good characters like Robin Hood and Sir Galahad, who have very different personalities; or characters like Inspector Javert and Jack Sparrow (equally neutral) or Darth Vader and the Joker (equally Evil).

Diminishing returns kick in pretty quickly, though. I can't really see how adding more slots along the two axes would allow enough extra detail to justify complicating things. There just aren't that many characters who would fit into the extreme slots. Characters like the Joker (Vile) are really only extreme versions of run-of-the-mill Evil characters (Draco Malfoy, for example), and that's only a problem for people who think alignment defines a character and that all characters of a certain alignment are alike.

I think we have enough recognition for that kind of thing in the BoED and BoVD (though I'll admit some of that stuff needs to be re-flavored)--there's no need to revamp the entire alignment system just because a few characters are extreme expressions of alignments.

You're looking at it from a player's perspective. I anticipate the players falling into the classic nine alignments. The extremes are real extremes, and, frankly, would be difficult to play, especially in a party with conflicting alignments.

A creature totally composed of hate; of bitter, black bilious contempt for all life, born from a universe of malice and torment, is going to have a different alignment than your run of the mill jokers and vaders or whatever.

I don't advocate making alignment more complicated than it needs to be, but if I was going to, I'd use this. It looks promising.

That is the same as Son of Zeals, but instead of using cool names for the extremes, tendencies has [alignment] [alignment] (subalignment), which is less cool.

[Marnath]

That is the same as Son of Zeals, but instead of using cool names for the extremes, tendencies has [alignment] [alignment] (subalignment), which is less cool.

It's a lot clearer though. For me, at least.

[Eldan]

It's also more or less what Planescape did: the great wheel has 17 outer planes. Arcadia, for example, is Lawful Neutral (Good).

[dsmiles]

I will once again lobby for sane/crazy and loves/hates pie.

Some believe the above are redundant, as no sane person could possibly hate pie. However, I believe there probably are crazed pie lovers somewhere out there.

+1 to the super-awesomesauce T.A.S.(Tyndmyr Alignment System).

[sonofzeal]

One of the reasons I expanded on the outside, rather than the inside, is to discourage PC's from being quite so extreme. Players already play CN Halfling Rogues, and far too many play that alignment to the hilt, to the point of seriously impacting team dynamics. How many times have we all heard "I'm just playing my alignment"?

Expanding on the inside, defining shades of neutral, does nothing about that. Worse, it gives people with a non-neutral alignment an even better excuse to be comically (or tragically) exaggerated.

Expanding on the outside, adding more extreme forms of each alignment, can help deter that... or at least give you warning well before it happens. If someone sits down and says they want to be Chaotic Evil, it means something very different than if they say they want to be Anarchic Vile, and if you assume they actually intend to play what they've chosen then it's much easier to allow it. By splitting off the extremes, you're muting the effect of the base nine, and I expect this to have an overall positive effect on the game.

[Callista]

You're looking at it from a player's perspective. I anticipate the players falling into the classic nine alignments. The extremes are real extremes, and, frankly, would be difficult to play, especially in a party with conflicting alignments.

A creature totally composed of hate; of bitter, black bilious contempt for all life, born from a universe of malice and torment, is going to have a different alignment than your run of the mill jokers and vaders or whatever.

Both player and DM, actually. As a DM, my villains generally aren't Joker-level evil; in fact, the very first villain I created wasn't evil at all--simply foolish and unaware of the chaos he was causing. (The Wisdom-draining poison didn't help.) However, if you're going to create a really Evil-plus kind of villain, you don't really need a mechanical way to say that he's more evil than most evil characters--you know that when he starts creating zombie plagues and wiping out innocent villages because he needs more fuel for his necromantic experiments. I never had a problem distinguishing your basic orc chieftain out for loot and glory from the aforementioned necromancer--yes, one's more evil than the other, but really, do you need to label them that way when their actions make it so obvious?

Similarly, a Good-plus character needn't have a special alignment to distinguish him from run-of-the-mill good guys; he's already probably taking Exalted feats (if they're the kind of feats that will help his character build) and using strategies like nonlethal damage and trying to convert rather than kill enemies.

Recognizing that someone is an exemplar of some alignment or another doesn't have to have any mechanics with it. It can be done entirely with fluff. We really don't need more alignment categories.

[Prime32]

I once saw a thread about adding alignments to represent the extreme polarity that exists in planar creatures, and was wondering if anyone knew where it was. I really liked the idea and am mulling over adding it to my games.

The gist was that things of exceptional evil, like an outsider or the most depraved of mortals would have an alignment a step beyond evil- Vile. Same with law, chaos, and good. It added a more granularity.

I would get rid of the "normal" alignments and only use these extremes.

Smite evil, etc. affect things with the [Evil] subtype and nothing else. Worshipping an evil deity may grant you the Evil subtype, as may using a lot of evil magic items (tieflings also gain the Evil subtype). Your actual behaviour doesn't matter.

[Kensen]

I don't advocate making alignment more complicated than it needs to be, but if I was going to, I'd use this. It looks promising.

Hahah that's interesting. I once had a character whom I described as being "evil-curious chaotic neutral".

[faceroll]

Both player and DM, actually. As a DM, my villains generally aren't Joker-level evil; in fact, the very first villain I created wasn't evil at all--simply foolish and unaware of the chaos he was causing. (The Wisdom-draining poison didn't help.) However, if you're going to create a really Evil-plus kind of villain, you don't really need a mechanical way to say that he's more evil than most evil characters--you know that when he starts creating zombie plagues and wiping out innocent villages because he needs more fuel for his necromantic experiments. I never had a problem distinguishing your basic orc chieftain out for loot and glory from the aforementioned necromancer--yes, one's more evil than the other, but really, do you need to label them that way when their actions make it so obvious?

I run planar games where the PCs face things that are entirely incomprehensible as a mortal. Creatures that are composed of universal rules. So yeah, mechanically distinguishing between Vile and Evil is as necessary as distinguishing between 18 and 24 dex.

Similarly, a Good-plus character needn't have a special alignment to distinguish him from run-of-the-mill good guys; he's already probably taking Exalted feats (if they're the kind of feats that will help his character build) and using strategies like nonlethal damage and trying to convert rather than kill enemies.

Good and Exalted are different. An Exalted character can never willingly commit an evil act, ever. A good character can. Those are already the current rules.

Recognizing that someone is an exemplar of some alignment or another doesn't have to have any mechanics with it. It can be done entirely with fluff.

There don't have to be any mechanics at all. But I prefer a mechanics heavier game like 3.x.

We really don't need more alignment categories.

Speak for yourself.

I would get rid of the "normal" alignments and only use these extremes.

Smite evil, etc. affect things with the [Evil] subtype and nothing else. Worshipping an evil deity may grant you the Evil subtype, as may using a lot of evil magic items (tieflings also gain the Evil subtype). Your actual behaviour doesn't matter.

No thanks. That doesn't help with what I want to do. At all.