Alignment

[Kane0]

Hey all. I have something I know the great minds of GitP can help me with.

In development of my own game system (here if your interested) the topic of Alignment was one of the items raised, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas or good brews they could point me to.

The basic idea I have so far is that the current alignment system (Axis of Good/Evil and Axis of Law/Chaos) is supplemented by a secondary alignment axis of Dedication or devotion, to differentiate the Lawful Evil dictator from his only barely lawful evil subjects.

If anyone could bounce an idea or alternative that improves on or is better than this it would be greatly appreciated. I am looking for a simple and elegant solution, but anything is welcome!

Thanks in advance!

[toapat]

Well, lets quick Define the Rigid rules for Character Alignment:

Good-Evil:
Good: You Prefer to take actions that benefit more then harm
Neutral: You prefer actions that benefit yourself.
Evil: You prefer actions that benefit you without regard to the harm they cause.

Lawful - Chaotic:
Law: Lawful Characters follow either a Code or system of Laws as defined by themselves. Lawful characters favor actions that strengthen a community
Neutral: Neutral Characters follow a Code that they frame out, or obey laws that they do not oppose. Neutral Characters favor actions that stregthen their interests.
Chaos: Chaotic Characters follow a rather basic code, and do not favor the following pf laws. Chaotic Characters favor actions that test the system.

in this situation, the theif archetype becomes TN (Look out for Number 1)

the Third axis doesnt really make sense.

with this system, Great Wheel outsiders are considered to always be Non-good though, as they favor actions that benefit themselves, but without the perspective of a Mortal.

[willpell]

The basic idea I have so far is that the current alignment system (Axis of Good/Evil and Axis of Law/Chaos) is supplemented by a secondary alignment axis of Dedication or devotion, to differentiate the Lawful Evil dictator from his only barely lawful evil subjects.

I've done something similar to this, though your example is a poor one as it suggests a difference of scale more than psychology. But there should definitely be a distinction between mob leg-breakers (LE by functional default - they follow the boss's word as law and obey the code of silence, doing whatever they're told to support their group and help it prosper at the expense of the social mainstream) and a Black Knight type (devoted to Evil Itself as a cause with all the vigor that a Paladin devotes to Good).

I've postulated such an axis before; the Black Knight's end of the spectrum (also fitting for Druids and the like who maintain that Neutrality is a cause in and of itself) is called Arch (as in Arch-Good or Arch-Evil), but I've never settled on a fully satisfactory name for its opposite, nor a clear distinction between being the opposite or being neutral on the axis. My best guess is that an anti-arch is someone who intentionally subverts the tropes, but the only example I can even begin to come up with is a Chaotic Neutral character who knows that Chaos has a reputation for being wacky and unpredictable, so he intentionally constructs his own system of quasi-Law and then deviates from it only on rare occasions which lead to tactical advantage, trying to ensure that nobody can know what he's going to do, not even by relying on that fact itself.

[TopCheese]

Make dedication/devotion a way to show PC's they are slipping away from their alignment.

Such as they have 10 devotion/dedication points and if they get to 0 then they go from Law to Neutral on the way to Chaos.

The same for good and evil.

Make it where medium to high actions will give or take away a point of dedication/devotion. Killing an enemy won't take any points away but kicking a puppy might take 1/2 to 1 point away.

Or something like that...

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Hm. Making a third axis sounds like it just complicates things. This is my preferred alignment system:

Spoiler

Show

Altruistic-Mercenary
Altruistic - Puts the needs of others before your own, or with little incentive in the way of monetary compensation
Mercenary - Puts your own needs above those of others, looking out for numero uno.

Optimist-Cynic
Optimist - You generally think well of the people and events around you. You usually feel that everything will work out in the end.
Cynic - You rarely think well of the people and events in your life. People can let you down, or they can do terrible things to each other. If things change, they'll just get worse.

Combos!

Altruistic Optimist : A young Bard who has just begun his adventuring career.
Mercenary Optimist : A thief who generally wants to help, but gets caught up on the whole "payment" thing.
Altruistic Cynic : A man who despises his father and has a very low opinion of people in general, who nevertheless puts his life in danger to save the world.
Mercenary Cynic : An Elven Wizard who tends to think everyone they come into contact with is an idiot compared to themselves, and is more focused on obtaining power than helping others.

I personally never bother with Neutrals.

[toapat]

Hm. Making a third axis sounds like it just complicates things. This is my preferred alignment system:

Spoiler

Show

Altruistic-Mercenary
Altruistic - Puts the needs of others before your own, or with little incentive in the way of monetary compensation
Mercenary - Puts your own needs above those of others, looking out for numero uno.

Optimist-Cynic
Optimist - You generally think well of the people and events around you. You usually feel that everything will work out in the end.
Cynic - You rarely think well of the people and events in your life. People can let you down, or they can do terrible things to each other. If things change, they'll just get worse.

Combos!

Altruistic Optimist : A young Bard who has just begun his adventuring career.
Mercenary Optimist : A thief who generally wants to help, but gets caught up on the whole "payment" thing.
Altruistic Cynic : A man who despises his father and has a very low opinion of people in general, who nevertheless puts his life in danger to save the world.
Mercenary Cynic : An Elven Wizard who tends to think everyone they come into contact with is an idiot compared to themselves, and is more focused on obtaining power than helping others.

I personally never bother with Neutrals.

Changing the name of the Good-Evil axis doesnt change the fact that you removed Evil from that axis. (and redefined Neutral to actually make sense (43 is LN, He has a job, a code, but he only is looking out for himself, while the hits he performs are CE, he is the weapon, not the committee))

Your perspective Axis doesnt really help, like Kane0's axis of vagueness. Alignment as personality doesnt work, it just leads to expanding spirals of rules to define actions.

Honestly, i think that it would be easier to understand alignment if you outright remove all but the Good-Evil axis. Law and Chaos already are folded into the definitions of Good and Evil, in that Good is typically working to benefit people and the community, while Evil carelessly destroys, and one of the casualties is Order.

hmm, now that i think about it:
Split Alignment appart. Have Good-Evil as Alignment, have Methodologies as Systemic-Anarchic, while having Motivations of Disinterested - Employed - Devoted. That way we dont get the cluttered mess of the Alignment Cube. We simply are told, are we typically helping people or harming them, Are we orderly or unpredictable, and how much do we typically care about what we are doing.

[Yitzi]

Hey all. I have something I know the great minds of GitP can help me with.

In development of my own game system (here if your interested) the topic of Alignment was one of the items raised, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas or good brews they could point me to.

The basic idea I have so far is that the current alignment system (Axis of Good/Evil and Axis of Law/Chaos) is supplemented by a secondary alignment axis of Dedication or devotion, to differentiate the Lawful Evil dictator from his only barely lawful evil subjects.

Instead of a separate axis, a better way to do that is scaled alignments. Instead of 3 alignments, say that each axis goes on a scale from -10 to 10, and higher-magnitude numbers mean more dedication to his position on that axis. Numbers near 0 (or 0 itself) will be neutrality.

I also have a completely new take on alignment; that's been mentioned in the other thread and will feature in my own remake. But for your issue of dedication, I think the scaled approach is the way to go; it allows far more subtlety than a third axis, while being quite simple.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Alignment as personality doesnt work, it just leads to expanding spirals of rules to define actions.

That's what Alignment is for in RPGs. The 43 example comes to mind. He doesn't care about good or evil necessarily, but he follows a personal code of conduct. Alignment = Personality. Actions taken are only an outward sign of the internal thought process. A LG Paladin follows the "Rules" because they feel that either rules make people good or good people naturally live by rules. But it's still just how you see the world and how that perception changes how you interact with people.

The system I laid out asks two things: What is your motivation (altruism v mercenary), and what is your worldview (cynical v optimistic). It's inherently personality-based, as is Alignment itself.

[Kane0]

I liked the alignment color wheel, it was interesting and fun. A bit too far removed from the traditional alignments though, so I'm unsure about putting it in.

[toapat]

That's what Alignment is for in RPGs. The 43 example comes to mind. He doesn't care about good or evil necessarily, but he follows a personal code of conduct. Alignment = Personality. Actions taken are only an outward sign of the internal thought process. A LG Paladin follows the "Rules" because they feel that either rules make people good or good people naturally live by rules. But it's still just how you see the world and how that perception changes how you interact with people.

The system I laid out asks two things: What is your motivation (altruism v mercenary), and what is your worldview (cynical v optimistic). It's inherently personality-based, as is Alignment itself.

no, Alignment is based off of Planescape and objective morality. It is sold wholesale in the books as being a framework for your character's personality, even though characters can have personalities that completely contradict their alignment, and Lawful-Chaotic axis is rediculously hard to comprehend as anything that defines personality without the Races of Stone/Races of Wild books, where Races of Wild solidifies Chaotic's personality as Freelancer, while Stone defines Lawful as orderly and honorable.

Throwing out Alignment as a hard indicator of Personality allows you do more easily adjust the system on the RP end to be simpler to understand, without limiting the interactions on the mechanical end. In fact, the way i said in blue up there works with the current spellsystem, but lets you have better organization and understanding of your character.

also, your System fails to understand that Mercenary-like motivations are Neutral, not Evil. Optimistic/Cynic just describes a person's outlook, not their actions.

I liked the alignment color wheel, it was interesting and fun. A bit too far removed from the traditional alignments though, so I'm unsure about putting it in.

i like it too, but the complexities of the MTG colorwheel could be an entire singular Rulebook before rebalancing spells with it. The color Wheel is complex, but boils down to:
White (W)= Community
Blue (U) = Logic
Black (B)= Ambition
Red (R)= Emotion
Green (G) = Evolution

the layers just get incredibly complex though, and the entire alignment system doesnt work without the gameplay system being built from the ground up around the color wheel.

to go with my quick definitions, we will pull out the 10 pairs as example:

WU: Law
UB: Ruthlessness
BR: Passion
RG: Primality
GW: Advancement
WR: Leadership
RU: Bi-Polar Disorder
UG: Breeding
GB: Adaptation
BW: Expansionism

[willpell]

I semi-like the idea of "dedication points". It would need to be done carefully so as not to increase the "lawful stupid" problem, but I'm in favor of attaching greater crunch to the mechanics if it can be implemented skillfully, so that instead of simple "fall/don'tfall" categories of actions, consequences can be somewhat nuanced and adjusted based on circumstances.

Law and Chaos already are folded into the definitions of Good and Evil, in that Good is typically working to benefit people and the community, while Evil carelessly destroys, and one of the casualties is Order.

Strongly disagree. 4E ditched the Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil alignments along with the L<->C neutrals, and I hated it. Characters of those alignments are almost always more interesting to me, more nuanced and realistic, and better representatives of Good's ideals (as opposed to a millitant zealotry which only claims to be Good) and Evil's ruthlessness (as opposed to a self-destructive spasticness which really comes closer to mental illness than to Evil).

[bobthe6th]

just going to toss in somthing I saw on the forums...
making both alinments into 5, so exalted good nutral evil demonic, auxomatic lawful nutral chaotic limbo(cant remeber this step).

[willpell]

AFAIK that was first proposed by Son of Zeal. I have now adopted it as well.

[Kholai]

Good and Evil is always fairly simple, and has two aspects: Altruism versus Greed, and Scope of Justice (Justice, by the way, contrary to popular belief, is a moral term, not a legalistic one).

Good: Consistently puts the need of others above the needs of themselves.

For a Good character, Justice is widespread and universal to their being - Injustice cannot be tolerated, and justice - fairness - is important.

Neutral: Puts their needs and those of their loved ones at a higher level than others, rarely seeking benefit at the great expense of strangers or sacrificing greatly for strangers.
For a neutral character, they are not driven by justice in the same way as a Good character, but they try to be fair, and try to be just in themselves without being driven to prevent injustice unless it exists within a context they care about.

Evil: Consistently puts their own needs above others, regardless of the cost.
This ranges from Selfish Jerk to outright sociopathy.

For an evil character, their sense of Justice is skewed; the only thing they consider to be unjust is when they don't get what they want, or when something unfair happens to something or someone they explicitly care about. This narrow view of justice is what drives most evil individuals.

It's important to remember that this is a sliding scale; a man who loves his mama but is a killer for hire is not the same Evil as the man who kills his family for crossing him, or the mobster who kills everyone who harms his family because he takes it as a personal insult to him that someone dared.

Neutral is not about a balance between Good and Evil unless the person is psychotic. Neutral characters might sacrifice themselves for a family member or friend, but would doubtfully do so for a stranger. Likewise, they might keep that 20 GP note that someone had dropped, but they would doubtfully kill someone to steal their cash, or take someone's last 20 GP.

An evil man can still love someone and treat them well without it being remotely contrary to their alignment, a neutral man could maintain a neutral outlook whilst accepting money to kill people if that money was to benefit his family and friends, and a Good man can kill for the greater good.

Lawful / Chaotic gets a lot more arguments, because people seem to have tangled this up with actual "law".

**

Slightly harder then, is Law versus Chaos, since it entangles two things which aren't at all related: Consistency and Legality. This is the biggest point of contention, and the legality issue stems from the former.

Simply put, a Lawful character is consistent, and a Chaotic character is erratic.

A lawful character who is dedicated to following the laws of the land will do so consistently, faithfully, and with dedication.

A chaotic character who is dedicated to following the laws of the land will have lapses, forget, have bigger reasons not to, and eventually lose interest.

This is why lawful and legal go hand in hand; but lawful does not have to mean legal at all. A Lawful Good character who is dedicated to good deeds will illegally liberate slaves with the same dedication to their lawbreaking as a chaotic sneak-thief.

The most important defining trait of a character is not their alignment, it's their personality; personality overrides alignment every time. A person's worldview will be skewed by their Personality trait. It might be an idea to have a few of these that players can select to flesh out their characters - and yours.

Racist - A lawful good person who believes that Orcs are irredeemable will commit genocide to protect the world for the greater good.
A chaotic evil person might believe that Pelor-followers are stupid, and murder them because it's fun.

Religious - Lawful Evil guy follows the tenets of the dread god of decay, poisoning and infecting millions. Chaotic Good guy spends their life robbing corrupt merchants and donating the proceeds to their congregation.

Law-Abiding - Even a chaotic neutral character with this personality trait thinks that obeying the law is important, even if it's because they don't want to get caught. They can be moody, free-spirited and unpredictable whilst never stepping outside of the confines of the law.

Just a few examples.

[toapat]

*Snip*

Good Evil: you basically hit the nail on the head

Law Chaos: Again, this is true, but one of the other things that make Law- Chaos so confusing is it isnt just defined as Orderly vs Eratic, but as Honorable and Dishonorable.

Im trying to figure out whether the point im agreeing with is what i would agree with, but i believe Personality being unlinked from alignment is a good thing, if that is what you are saying.

basically, what i said was just kill alignment down to the simple question of are you doing good or evil.

Then you have Methodologies of Law (Orderly) and Chaos (Erratic)

Then, you have things like Personality Modifiers.

This works better in my opinion because you dont mistake one thing for the other, we can keep pretty simple, straightforward definitions to them without loosing them, and we can transmit information in ways that prevents it from overloading and confusing players.

[Kholai]

Good Evil: you basically hit the nail on the head

Law Chaos: Again, this is true, but one of the other things that make Law- Chaos so confusing is it isnt just defined as Orderly vs Eratic, but as Honorable and Dishonorable.

True, but how much of Honour is related to the concept of Justice, or moral concerns?

Would it be okay if a Lawful person was played as a pathological liar and made a life of crime stealing from people - so long as they maintain consistent, structured behaviour? A serial killer who preys on children and steals mementos from the dead is engaged in dishonourable behaviour, but they are patterned and organised.

I'm trying to figure out whether the point im agreeing with is what i would agree with, but i believe Personality being unlinked from alignment is a good thing, if that is what you are saying.

Pretty much yeah, your Personality is independent of your alignment, but at the same time.... It's like a lens; it filters your alignment.

A Greedy+Cowardly LG person is consistently cowardly and greedy, but still tries to do things for other people; so long as it doesn't cost too much or put them at too much risk. They're still doing Good, they're still Consistent and Orderly in their behaviour, but only in the ways allowed by their Personality.

Meanwhile, a Proud+Civic-Minded CE person can be so proud of their town that they'll happily serve on the City Watch... and brutally beat anyone that litters to death.

Those adjectives are the most important thing, everything else is just how they express that personality. Like you said, this brings a much needed clarity to issues of alignment.

[toapat]

True, but how much of Honour is related to the concept of Justice, or moral concerns?

Would it be okay if a Lawful person was played as a pathological liar and made a life of crime stealing from people - so long as they maintain consistent, structured behaviour? A serial killer who preys on children and steals mementos from the dead is engaged in dishonourable behaviour, but they are patterned and organised.

Pretty much yeah, your Personality is independent of your alignment, but at the same time.... It's like a lens; it filters your alignment.

Honor in this case is based off of of the Chivalric Code, so it is more based on moral concern. In a way this is just a different lens of Good-Evil as a result.

id reiterate why separating Alignment into at least 3 separate line on the character sheet is a good idea, but then i just would start to sound narrow minded. It is a system that works by simplicity, that i cant find flaw in, Other people may though

[willpell]

Honor in this case is based off of of the Chivalric Code, so it is more based on moral concern. In a way this is just a different lens of Good-Evil as a result.

Disagree here. Cultures with strong senses of Honor have often dictated that Honor demanded an act that we would call Evil, such as executing someone because they insulted you in public - you're obligated to protect your good name as a Knight or Samurai, while the Good thing would be to have humility and not murder someone over a bruised ego. There are even harsher cases inherent in some highly structured society, but I have a fuzzy grasp on the details and don't want to get in trouble for discussing politics so I'll leave it with this very broad example.

[toapat]

Disagree here. Cultures with strong senses of Honor have often dictated that Honor demanded an act that we would call Evil, such as executing someone because they insulted you in public - you're obligated to protect your good name as a Knight or Samurai, while the Good thing would be to have humility and not murder someone over a bruised ego. There are even harsher cases inherent in some highly structured society, but I have a fuzzy grasp on the details and don't want to get in trouble for discussing politics so I'll leave it with this very broad example.

Chivalric Honor, not Japanese honor (ie, what you are describing)

[willpell]

Not all medieval European knights were both honorable and chivalrous. A lot were little more than thugs in the employ of their Lord, and they would definitely kill anyone who spoke out of turn about their lord, about them to their lord, in their lord's presence, or if they just felt like it and their lord hadn't ordered them not to.

[toapat]

Not all medieval European knights were both honorable and chivalrous. A lot were little more than thugs in the employ of their Lord, and they would definitely kill anyone who spoke out of turn about their lord, about them to their lord, in their lord's presence, or if they just felt like it and their lord hadn't ordered them not to.

that isnt following Chivalric Honor though.

[Kholai]

Disagree here. Cultures with strong senses of Honor have often dictated that Honor demanded an act that we would call Evil, such as executing someone because they insulted you in public - you're obligated to protect your good name as a Knight or Samurai, while the Good thing would be to have humility and not murder someone over a bruised ego. There are even harsher cases inherent in some highly structured society, but I have a fuzzy grasp on the details and don't want to get in trouble for discussing politics so I'll leave it with this very broad example.

Maintaining the social order in a rigid caste system could very well be considered "for the greater good", aka Good alignment. But this is irrelevant, if it's evil or good, the code is still a moral concern and on the GE axis, not the LC one.

[willpell]

that isnt following Chivalric Honor though.

Right, it's following Honor period, as a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil might do. The letter of the law, the exact stated terms of your sworn word, the obligations of your reputation and your loyalty to land and liege, but not a drop of compassion for anyone you haven't promised to look out for. Where you got the idea that chivalry was inextricable from honor I have no idea.

[toapat]

GE axis, not the LC one.

longhand please

Right, it's following Honor period, as a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil might do. The letter of the law, the exact stated terms of your sworn word, the obligations of your reputation and your loyalty to land and liege, but not a drop of compassion for anyone you haven't promised to look out for. Where you got the idea that chivalry was inextricable from honor I have no idea.

no, it isnt. Chivalric Honor (Which you are missing the entire point of why im using that destinction) is an idealized version of how Nobles are supposed to act. Helping the poor, Not playing the games of Intrigue, being exemplars of man, showing respect to those above and below you, to disprove dishonest accusations and admit to truthful ones, Accept the challenges of their equals, and to serve their god. Sound Familiar? Its the Paladin's Code

[willpell]

You said:

Honor in this case is based off of of the Chivalric Code, so it is more based on moral concern. In a way this is just a different lens of Good-Evil as a result.

And I disagreed. Honor is not based off of the Chivalric Code, and honor is not a Good-Evil distinction. Chivalry might be, and a Paladin certainly ties them together, but a Yojimbo or the like does not. He has honor and only honor, and is Lawful Neutral. Another character might be Lawful Evil but still uphold Honor, as his justification for why he's better than the peasants he oppresses.

[toapat]

Honor is not based off of the Chivalric Code.

Read the PHB, it is.

its part of the things that makes alignment as defined stupid. Lawful on the surface means orderly, and that is what makes sense. what doesnt is that Honor as defined doesnt fit the definition of Lawful, because it is a set of guidelines for the Good-Evil axis.

the reason Alignment is so debatable in DnD is because of 2 facts:

Nothing is set in stone.

it tries to be a guideline for character personality, but is instead a mess of muddy wording and horrible ideas.

[willpell]

Read the PHB, it is.

Well then the PHB is wrong IMO. Honor isn't a game stat, it's a word. Alignment may affect the game in mechanical ways, but it's still about roleplaying rather than mechanics, and thus is something that should go by an English definition rather than a D&D rule.

[Ashtagon]

Rather than making however many axes or redefining "lawful" and the other existing axes, ask yourself another question.

Mechanically, what is alignment supposed to do in your game?

If it's just to define a personality, consider switching to short paragraphs instead. They're more flexible. Or consider d20 Modern's allegiances.

If it's there to interact with the various smite/protection spells, consider that the source of those spells is normally divine. So perhaps redefine those spells not as holy word but as vengeance of xyz domain, not protection from evil but protection from (inimical to domain).

[Yitzi]

Read the PHB, it is.

its part of the things that makes alignment as defined stupid. Lawful on the surface means orderly, and that is what makes sense. what doesnt is that Honor as defined doesnt fit the definition of Lawful, because it is a set of guidelines for the Good-Evil axis.

By the psychological (as I defined it in the other thread) definition of the Lawful/Chaotic axis, though, honor fits very well with Lawful.

The more I see, the more it looks like they had the psychological approach to alignment with assorted implications, and somewhere before the publication of 3.5, they switched to the ideological approach, but didn't think to change all the resulting implications, with the result that a lot of things make no sense.

Let this be a warning for all homebrewers and fixers: When you change something, especially in fluff, think carefully about what else comes with it.

[nonsi]

Alignment^3