Alternate Alignment System ("Inverse Conjunction")

[Geordnet]

So then, alignment seems to be a major sticking point in discussions. It is very common for two or more people to have irreconcilable differences in opinion of where a character or action would lie in terms of alignment.

I've noticed, though, that the vast majority of heated debate is over position on the Good/Evil axis, rather than the Law/Chaos axis. (Which doesn't make much sense to me, but I can work with it.) The most obvious response is to cut out that axis entirely, and go with a pure Law/Chaos alignment like in (for example) NetHack. However, that feels to me like it's missing something...

So, I developed this hybrid system:

{table]

–

|

Good

|

–

Lawful|Neutral|Chaotic

–

|

Evil

|

–

[/table]

The first thing you'll probably notice is the lack of any combination alignments like "Lawful Good" or "Chaotic Evil". This is why I chose the name "Inverse Conjunction". That isn't the important part, though.


The key concept here is that over 99.99% of mortals will lie on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is reserved only for supernatural creatures, and the most innocent or most vile of people. Many if not most settings will not have any amongst the ranks of mortals.

It's also important to bear in mind that Law is not Good and Chaos is not Evil. To the contrary, it's just as often the other way around. Hopefully though this distinction will be easier to grasp, though.


Alignment Sorting Algorithm:

Here are the rules for deciding what alignment to place a character. They are synonymous with the definitions thereof. (As in, "Good" alignment is defined by "those whom are sorted into 'Good' by this algorithm".)

(Note: The rules currently written are only for sorting mortals. Supernatural or superhuman characters follow a different set of rules, which I have yet to write down.)

Step 1: Sorting Good and Evil.

Spoiler

Show

The first thing you'll want to do is figure out if a character qualifies for Good or Evil status.

When considering a character, ask yourself the following three questions:

1. Can the character be considered the absolute best or worst in his setting? If not, is it because there are others better/worse than him, or just (roughly) equal?
2. Does the character have any sort of moral flaws or "skeletons in the closet", (if considering Good) or any redeeming qualities or "moral fiber" (if considering Evil)?
3. How much attention does the story bring to the character's purity and innocence or wretched vileness? That is to say, to what lengths does it go to point it out to the audience? (If you are making a character for an adventure or campaign, instead ask yourself what your intent behind the character is. Are you trying to make a character who's ultimately Good/Evil at heart?)

If the answer to #1 is "no", then the character is probably not Good/Evil unless others on par with or 'superior' to him are also Good/Evil. (Evaluate them separately.) If it's "yes", then he'll probably qualify if anyone else in the setting will.

If #2 is "yes, several", then the character does not qualify. But if the answer is "yes, he has one- but he's been trying really hard to make up for it", then he could still qualify, but there are no guarantees. If the answer is "no, none at all", then the prospects of him qualifying are very good.

If #3 is "yes", then the character should qualify unless one of the answers to the other questions says that he shouldn't. If "no", then he probably doesn't qualify unless all other criteria are favorable.

Step 2: Sorting Law and Chaos.

Spoiler

Show

Since most characters don't fall into Good or Evil, they'll have do be sorted by Law or Chaos instead.

Ask the following questions, in the following order:

• Does the character feel compelled to obey the law, even when he doesn't agree with it? If so, he is Lawful.
• Does the character act outside the law on a regular basis, without remorse? If so, he is Chaotic.
• Does the character follow an externally formalized code, like chivalry? If so, he is Lawful. (Provided he does more than pay lip service to it, of course.)

(From this point on, the questions are in no particular order, nor definitive. I'm still working on a better definition.)

• Can you trust the character at his word? What about a formal oath or vow?
• Is the character in a position that is generally associated with Law or Chaos?
• Is the character a member of a "usually Lawful" or "usually Chaotic" race?
• Is the character associated with a strongly Lawful or Chaotic group or organization?
• Was the character brought up amongst nobility, or amongst beggars and thieves?
• Is the character very wild or disciplined?

I could probably go on, but I'm running out of ideas for now.

Additional information:

Spoiler

Show

Here are some general concepts behind the alignments. Note, however, that these are not their exact definitions, and should not be treated as such.

(They're also in need of an update, and may not be entirely in line with the current concept I'm working with.)

Neutral:
Neutral is the default group. If there is ever significant doubt about a character's alignment, put them here. (Unless they are of a "Usually Lawful" or "Usually Chaotic" race.)

Lawful:
Lawful beings are more likely to adhere to a stricter set of rules than non-Lawful beings. This varies from person to person, but usually includes laws set down by local governments -yet not always (especially when the local laws vastly differ from those of one's home town). The key term here is consistency: a Lawful person doesn't change their principles on a whim. They are more likely to prefer stability over change, even if it's possible the change will be for the better. A tyrant who cracks down hard on crime and dissension, a nobleman who keeps his Machiavellian schemes subtle and covert, an assassin who refuses to kill when not being paid (but isn't necessarily picky about his targets), and an arrogant yet honorable knight are all examples of Lawful characters.

Chaotic:
Chaotic characters are more likely to ignore rules, especially those set up by others, and sometimes the consequences for breaking them too. Any rules they place on themselves are usually more or less arbitrary, although they may not change their mind very easily. They are more likely to seek change to escape from stagnation, occasionally even risking a change for the worse. A marauding brigand, a rebel against any government, a fiery public speaker, a vagabond street urchin (and most children for that matter), and a scientist who constantly pushes the limits of conventional thinking are all examples of Chaotic characters.

Good:
"Good enough" doesn't cut it. This alignment is probably impossible to achieve in real life; but that's okay, for what is the purpose of Fantasy if not to dream of the impossible? PCs are without exception not this, if only because Good people don't go off killing things for fun. Good also comes in humble packages: it is not the paladin that defends an orphanage from a band of orcs that is Good, instead it is the one child who thanklessly tends to the wounds of his fellow orphans.

Evil:
Unlike Good, Evil is far too realistic an alignment. Thankfully though, not one in ten thousand people is sufficiently vile to be so. Before classifying a villain as Evil, ask yourself "does he have a single shred of what could be called 'moral fiber', by any stretch?" If the answer is "yes", then you probably shouldn't dilute the potency of the word by including him under it. Even if a campaign has dozens of villains, if they have any characterization at all then only a fraction of them will be truly Evil.

When converting from the traditional 9 alignments to this system, prefer moving to the horizontal axis unless the being in question is more spiritual than physical, (i.e. angels, demons, etc.) in which case prefer the vertical axis. (Such beings with LN or CN alignments should be considered for optional transfer to Neutral as well.)



So, I guess some more examples are in order. (DISCLAIMER: these are all my personal opinions; yours may vary, but hopefully not as much as they would with the other system.)

Spoiler

Show

OotS has at least two Evil characters: Xykon and Tarquin. Nale may count as well, but most of the other villains don't. Malak and Redcloak are more Lawful, for instance. Roy and Durkon are Lawful, Haley and Belkar are Chaotic, and since V's hard to place (s)he's Neutral by default. Elan is actually the closest character to Good in the comic IMO, because of his childish innocence; but failing that he's Chaotic.

The only Good mortal character I can think of might be Samwise Gamgee, although he isn't perfect. Just the closest. If he doesn't make that he's Lawful. Frodo would probably be Neutral, while Merry and Pippin (and sometimes Bilbo) would be Chaotic. Legolas and Gimli default to Chaotic and Lawful, respectively. Borimir, being a noble and captain of Gondor, would be Lawful. Aragorn would be more Chaotic as a ranger and more Lawful as a king, so I'd place him overall as Neutral. Gandalf is Good, although that's primarily because he isn't a mortal.

Superman would be Good, but I don't think he really counts as a "mortal". Batman is Chaotic, because the essence of his character is a masked vigilante. Lux Luthor probably would not be Evil (with a capitol 'E') because he's primarily after money, which isn't Evil in itself (though the love of it is the root all kinds of Evil). The Joker, however, would be.

The (old) Jedi Order was strictly Lawful, with few exceptions: Obi-Wan might be Neutral, and Anakin would be either Neutral or Chaotic. Darth Vader would be Evil, though, as would be the Emperor. Most Imperialists would be merely Lawful, though, while the Rebels are Chaotic.

Well, I'm getting tired of typing. I guess it's time to submit and see what everyone thinks. I'll warn you though that this is a purely theory-based system, and I have little to no practical experience to judge if it'll work.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I think that the reason why people argue less over "Law" vs. "Chaos" is, rather paradoxically, that those definitions are a lot less clear than good vs. evil. With "Good" vs. "Evil", there are strong opinions and arguments to be made; with "Law" vs. "Chaos", it's a lot easier to write changes off as a player or character's point of view.

There's also the fact that "Law" is pretty widely agreed to not be the same thing as "Local Law" - it just depends on the character's own code. Since the code is something defined by the player (While "Good" might be defined by the DM) there's less room for argument.

You might want to elaborate more on why you cut out the corner cases.

[Geordnet]

I think that the reason why people argue less over "Law" vs. "Chaos" is, rather paradoxically, that those definitions are a lot less clear than good vs. evil. With "Good" vs. "Evil", there are strong opinions and arguments to be made; with "Law" vs. "Chaos", it's a lot easier to write changes off as a player or character's point of view.

Well, that's still Mission: Accomplished for me. The system is intended to minimize arguments more than be a definitive answer.

There's also the fact that "Law" is pretty widely agreed to not be the same thing as "Local Law" - it just depends on the character's own code. Since the code is something defined by the player (While "Good" might be defined by the DM) there's less room for argument.

I don't think I refuted that here. I suppose it could be made more clear, though.

You might want to elaborate more on why you cut out the corner cases.

Gladly.

I cut out the corner cases because they weren't needed. Since Good and Evil only refer to extremes, any sort of additional classification would be superfluous and confusing.

Also, Good and Evil will be used for supernatural beings far more often than mortals. Such beings write the rules.

[Tovec]

Superman would be Lawful, and Batman Chaotic.

DISAGREE.

Superman Good. Batman Law (or neutral depending on iteration).

That is all I have to say.

[chaos_redefined]

So... what we have here is someone saying "here's an alignment system that fixes the arguments", and someone else disagreeing with the example characters?

I mean no disrespect, but that sounds like a case of "back to the drawing board".

Furthermore, let's say I have a character who disregards all rules, and has no shred of moral fibre? You have a character who fits into two categories. Cases like that is why the corner cases appeared in the first place.

Although you did hit a good idea in there... Express each alignment as a question. For example (and this is my preferred definition of lawful/chaotic)...

Your character made a promise. Assuming the circumstances do not change, does your character keep his/her promise? If not, s/he is chaotic. The circumstances change, and keeping the promise is now a lot worse than it was when s/he made the promise. Does s/he break the promise now, hoping the circumstances justify this action? If so, s/he is neutral (on the law/chaos axis). Otherwise, s/he is lawful.

Please note, this is my preferred definition, and I completely understand that other players may prefer a different definition. Please don't argue about the definition, just the concept of using questions to determine alignment.

[LordErebus12]

Id simply fill in those blank spots with the actual alignments (lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic evil, chaotic good). benefits of both what you present, and what is already a given.

[Geordnet]

So... what we have here is someone saying "here's an alignment system that fixes the arguments", and someone else disagreeing with the example characters?

I mean no disrespect, but that sounds like a case of "back to the drawing board".

I never said it would fix all arguments.

(And yeah, I definitely considered Good for Superman. But Batman is definitely Chaotic though, IMO: he's a masked vigilante who uses fear as a weapon, after all. But then again, there's plenty of wiggle room in the Law/Chaos direction as well...)

Furthermore, let's say I have a character who disregards all rules, and has no shred of moral fibre? You have a character who fits into two categories. Cases like that is why the corner cases appeared in the first place.

Choose one. Which one is more important? Which defines the character more?

There's a lot of grey area as far as good vs. evil goes within the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic spectrum. This was intended. The point is to make sure that the only people with an 'Evil' alignment are those whom everyone can accept is Evil.

And if you're that Evil, then concerns over your exact methods are a tad trivial, don't you think? Why bother even trying to draw a line between Hannibal Lector and the Joker? Does it really matter what the difference is?

Although you did hit a good idea in there... Express each alignment as a question. For example (and this is my preferred definition of lawful/chaotic)...

I would go so far as to say that everyone's measure of Lawful vs. Chaotic is a valid one; exactly which one will be used for any given campaign world is up to the GM though.

On a related note, I fully endorse having the GM define the PCs' alignments, based upon their actions and what alignment they're trying to be.



EDIT:
I finally came up with an example of a Good(ish) character. Corporal Carrot from Discworld probably qualifies. He'd be the only character in the entire franchise whom would, though.


EDIT2:

Id simply fill in those blank spots with the actual alignments (lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic evil, chaotic good). benefits of both what you present, and what is already a given.

I cut them out for a reason. There is no need for them, at all. If you're good or evil enough to quality for Good or Evil status, then you are beyond Law and Chaos.

Why have Lawful Good when just Good will suffice? Especially since doing what's right does not always line up with keeping the law. Similarly, why bother with Chaotic Evil when a truly Evil person only obeys the rules that it amuses him to follow? And how is Chaotic Good different from just always doing what's right? And Lawful Evil not just more organized Evil?

[Frathe]

I never said it would fix all arguments.

(And yeah, I definitely considered Good for Superman. But Batman is definitely Chaotic though, IMO: he's a masked vigilante who uses fear as a weapon, after all. But then again, there's plenty of wiggle room in the Law/Chaos direction as well...)

About the Batman vigilante question, you might want to read this.

[Geordnet]

About the Batman vigilante question, you might want to read this.

This discussion showcases the reasons why I wanted to take "right" out of the equation entirely.

In fact, if you define Law/Chaos as one's willingness to obey rules and expectations set down by others, then decision becomes even less one of personal opinion.

I think I should explicitly define Law as this, here. Merely keeping one's own standards isn't Lawful, it's Good (relatively speaking). Classifying Batman as Lawful is pretty much entirely a case of "Law = Good" if I've ever seen one.


In this system, "right" or "wrong" doesn't come into the equation. If Bruce Wayne were Lawful, he would work within the system to stop crime, going outside of it only when it is irreparably broken, then coming back as soon as it's fixed.

Instead, he wears his underwear on the outside and beats people up with his own fists, defying convention and the law itself. He is definitively not Lawful. He may be considered Neutral if it is shown that he has a significant amount of Lawful actions in addition to his Chaotic ones, but that does not change the fact that his Chaotic actions are the ones that really define him.


I'd go back and rewrite the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic in these stricter terms, but I've got to go now.

[inuyasha]

DISAGREE.

Superman Good. Batman Law (or neutral depending on iteration).

That is all I have to say.

batman could be evil...i saw a comic once where he kicked an innocent man in the back of the head for eating ice cream

[Frathe]

I think I should explicitly define Law as this, here. Merely keeping one's own standards isn't Lawful, it's Good (relatively speaking). Classifying Batman as Lawful is pretty much entirely a case of "Law = Good" if I've ever seen one.

You're misunderstanding the argument for him as Lawful. It's not a conflation of Good with Lawful, it's because (in later incarnations of the character) he has a very strict moral code, that includes not killing any criminals, no matter what their crimes. That kind of rigid code, that doesn't change regardless of the situation, sounds pretty Lawful to me.

Edit: Okay, I see. You believe that keeping one's own standards isn't sufficient to qualify as Lawful. Remember that that discussion was about the standard D&D alignment system. Look at this:

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

[Geordnet]

Edit: Okay, I see. You believe that keeping one's own standards isn't sufficient to qualify as Lawful. Remember that that discussion was about the standard D&D alignment system.

Right. But this isn't the standard system, and this is a difference I'll need to make clear.


Chaos isn't exclusive with setting rules for oneself. Although doing so is a Lawful tendency, few if any people are entirely Lawful or Chaotic. In this case, the Chaotic aspect still shines through: the line between beating someone up and killing them may be clear, but it is also somewhat arbitrary (from a Law/Chaos perspective, at least).

You need to look at which aspect of a character defines him. Batman with a less rigid moral code is still a Caped Crusader. When you boil his character down to its essence, he's a guy in a bat suit who beats people up. And that should be unambiguously Chaotic.


I think all this discussion is good, though. It gives a good example about what is and is not important when deciding alignment.

batman could be evil...i saw a comic once where he kicked an innocent man in the back of the head for eating ice cream

That is not nearly Evil enough. In this system, Evil is EVIL. E-V-I-L.

It is not a label you should not apply to anyone you are not prepared to directly compare to the devil himself.


(Note: This is exactly the sort of thing this system is designed to stop. If a character does both good deeds and evil deeds, as most well-written characters will, then you'll have people who think the good deeds outweigh the evil ones, and that the character will therefore be Good; however, there will always be people who think the opposite. In this system, there is a lot less grey area.)

[Frathe]

Right. But this isn't the standard system, and this is a difference I'll need to make clear.

Okay, but let's not confuse things. I still don't agree that Law/Good confusion is happening in the case of Batman, and you haven't indicated your feelings either way since I last said something about it. However, that's a discussion about the D&D alignment system, not about yours, so I'm going to stop discussing it for now in interest in sticking to the thread topic. We can PM if you want to discuss it further.

Chaos isn't exclusive with setting rules for oneself. Although doing so is a Lawful tendency, few if any people are entirely Lawful or Chaotic. In this case, the Chaotic aspect still shines through: the line between beating someone up and killing them may be clear, but it is also somewhat arbitrary (from a Law/Chaos perspective, at least).

You need to look at which aspect of a character defines him. Batman with a less rigid moral code is still a Caped Crusader. When you boil his character down to its essence, he's a guy in a bat suit who beats people up. And that should be unambiguously Chaotic.


I think all this discussion is good, though. It gives a good example about what is and is not important when deciding alignment.

From an ethical perspective, I can't agree that the difference between killing people and merely injuring or jailing them is "arbitrary".

That is not nearly Evil enough. In this system, Evil is EVIL. E-V-I-L.

It is not a label you should not apply to anyone you are not prepared to directly compare to the devil himself.


(Note: This is exactly the sort of thing this system is designed to stop. If a character does both good deeds and evil deeds, as most well-written characters will, then you'll have people who think the good deeds outweigh the evil ones, and that the character will therefore be Good; however, there will always be people who think the opposite. In this system, there is a lot less grey area.)

I'm curious; would you consider an individual like Hitler Evil? What about a mass conqueror like Genghis Khan?

[Geordnet]

From an ethical perspective, I can't agree that the difference between killing people and merely injuring or jailing them is "arbitrary".

And you would be right not to!

But we aren't talking about ethics. That's the Good/Evil spectrum. We're solely concerned with the Law/Chaos spectrum here. And there's a reason I chose the colors I did for Law and Chaos...

From this perspective, the value of human life is irrelevant. Law doesn't care if you kill criminals or imprison them, as long as the proper procedure is followed. Then again, it might favor capitol punishment slightly, because of its ruthless efficiency (no need to keep prisoners fed).

I keep stressing that "Law =/= Good" because I don't know if I can do so enough. Both extremes are equally as alien and terrible as the other. We should be thankful, then, that we do not see the extreme of Law as often we do that of Chaos... Anarchy is much preferable to INGSOC.

I'm curious; would you consider an individual like Hitler Evil? What about a mass conqueror like Genghis Khan?

Personally? Yes. But for the purposes of this system?
...That's much more of an edge case.

The Good and Evil alignments are explicitly intended to be beyond the scope of human capability. In fact, they may not be physically possible outside the realm of fantasy.

For Evil, mere insanity or lust for power isn't enough. It must boggle the mind that this person could be so utterly abominable. Anything short of that dilutes the power of the word.

And as for Good, no one is perfect. But one has to be in order to qualify. If a character has a single moral deficit, then he is merely "good enough". Again, anything less is unworthy.


The point is to put power back in those words. When everyone who's nicer than average is "Good", and everyone meaner "Evil", then nobody bats an eye at the terms. But this way, Good can be the precious commodity it really is, and Evil truly horrifying.

[Frathe]

I keep stressing that "Law =/= Good" because I don't know if I can do so enough. Both extremes are equally as alien and terrible the other. We should be thankful, then, that we do not see the extreme of Law as often we do that of Chaos... Anarchy is much preferable to INGSOC.

I see... These are quite different from the D&D Order and Chaos.

The Good and Evil alignments are explicitly intended to be beyond the scope of human capability. In fact, they may not be physically possible outside the realm of fantasy.

For Evil, mere insanity or lust for power isn't enough. It must boggle the mind that this person could be so utterly abominable. Anything short of that dilutes the power of the word.

And as for Good, no one is perfect. But one has to be in order to qualify. If a character has a single moral deficit, then he is merely "good enough". Again, anything less is unworthy.


The point is to put power back in those words. When everyone who's nicer than average is "Good", and everyone meaner "Evil", then nobody bats an eye at the terms. But this way, Good can be the precious commodity it really is, and Evil truly horrifying.

I see a potential problem--if you have such high standards for qualifying as an alignment, is the system even going to be in significant use? From what you say, no one will be good except for angels, gods and saints, and no one will be evil except for devils and maybe mass murderers. You have such extreme requirements for being anything but neutral on that axis that it almost seems useless for anything but religious-ish cosmology.

[Razanir]

The Good and Evil alignments are explicitly intended to be beyond the scope of human capability. In fact, they may not be physically possible outside the realm of fantasy.

For Evil, mere insanity or lust for power isn't enough. It must boggle the mind that this person could be so utterly abominable. Anything short of that dilutes the power of the word.

And as for Good, no one is perfect. But one has to be in order to qualify. If a character has a single moral deficit, then he is merely "good enough". Again, anything less is unworthy.


The point is to put power back in those words. When everyone who's nicer than average is "Good", and everyone meaner "Evil", then nobody bats an eye at the terms. But this way, Good can be the precious commodity it really is, and Evil truly horrifying.

The problem which others have pointed out is that Good and Evil are the agreed upon alignments. Everyone (I think) already agreed that Good is people who help others, Evil is people who only help themselves, and Neutral is people who help friends and family. More vague and more in need of a fix is Law v Chaos.

For reference, my descriptions of everything:
LG– Help others and obey laws. Examples: Hermione and the Bishop of Digne
LN– Enforce the law first, help others second. Examples: Cornelius Fudge and Inspector Javert
LE– Hurt others within the law. Example: Dolores Umbridge
CG– Help others outside of the law. Examples: Robin Hood and Batman
CN– Wee! I rebel while only really caring about me and my friends! Example: Peeves, actually. He's a trickster, but not actually malicious
CE– Wanton destruction. No care for others and no care for the law. Example: Tom Marvolo Riddle or Bellatrix Lestrange
NG– Helps others, doesn't care either way about the law. Example: Harry Potter
N– Doesn't care either way about the law, cares mostly about friends and family. Example: Radagast the Brown
NE– Only cares about themselves/Wants to hurt others, but feels neither a compulsion to do so entirely within the law or entirely outside of the law. Example: Most Death Eaters

If any alignments in your chart are beyond human capabilities, it would be Law and Chaos. Strict adherence to rules and complete anarchy?

Your alignments are grouped:
Good: NG
Evil: CE
Lawful: LG, LN, LE, CN (the assassin)
Chaotic: CG, CN, CE, N (children)
Neutral: N, NG, NE

[Plato Play-Doh]

Honestly, the way I see it, the problem with the alignment system is that it forces people into one of 9 categories, and oversimplifies characters. It just doesn't feel fluid or at all realistic. Personally, I feel that alignment in general shouldn't have a mechanical presence, and should be solely based on story and roleplay. I am truly annoyed by the idea of things like "detect evil," since the definitions of good and evil, law and chaos, are subjective, and it forces the game into ideas of black and white morality that hinder good storytelling. "Good" isn't something you are, it's the way you act, and if someone thinks that your actions are evil, then they become evil from their perspective. There is no concrete way to define these things. Coming from this perspective, it seems like you are simplifying things even farther, which is, in my opinion, going in the exact wrong direction.

[Frozen_Feet]

The thought that alignment can't be objective is baloney. It can be so trivially within context of a single game. People just needlessly object when some definition offends their real world moral sensibilities, or when some alignment system doesn't give just the right adjectives to their favorite character.

For example, you can make a system under which Hitler can without contradiction be Good. People will cry foul because he should "obviously be evil". That's not necessarily because the system is illogical or even bad, it is simply because people can't accept either its conclusions or underlying premises.

On that note, I dislike the system presented in this thread for three reasons. First, your definitions are poor and near non-existent for what the alignments mean. You attempt to define them mostly through examples, but that brings me to my second point: your examples are god-awful, and you must explain why they fall in their respective categories.

Third, barrier of entry for both good and evil are both ridiculously high. You're short-shelling how good people can be without being flawless, and how evil seemingly ordinary people can be. People like the Joker do exist, but they make up more like 1% of population rather than 0,0001%. Likewise, people like Ghandhi might make up just 1% of mortals, but that's still a significant number.

You just don't hear about all of them, because neither good or evil are (or should be) synonymous with famous.

I do like your attitude towards law and chaos, though. Too many people dismiss obedience towards actual laws when determining whether a character is lawful. This leads to such funny claims like saying a self-confessed nihilist vigilante and demonstrated hypocrite is lawful just because he says "never compromise" a couple of times.

[Plato Play-Doh]

The thought that alignment can't be objective is baloney. It can be so trivially within context of a single game. People just needlessly object when some definition offends their real world moral sensibilities, or when some alignment system doesn't give just the right adjectives to their favorite character.

For example, you can make a system under which Hitler can without contradiction be Good. People will cry foul because he should "obviously be evil". That's not necessarily because the system is illogical or even bad, it is simply because people can't accept either its conclusions or underlying premises.

On that note, I dislike the system presented in this thread for three reasons. First, your definitions are poor and near non-existent for what the alignments mean. You attempt to define them mostly through examples, but that brings me to my second point: your examples are god-awful, and you must explain why they fall in their respective categories.

Third, barrier of entry for both good and evil are both ridiculously high. You're short-shelling how good people can be without being flawless, and how evil seemingly ordinary people can be. People like the Joker do exist, but they make up more like 1% of population rather than 0,0001%. Likewise, people like Ghandhi might make up just 1% of mortals, but that's still a significant number.

You just don't hear about all of them, because neither good or evil are (or should be) synonymous with famous.

I do like your attitude towards law and chaos, though. Too many people dismiss obedience towards actual laws when determining whether a character is lawful. This leads to such funny claims like saying a self-confessed nihilist vigilante and demonstrated hypocrite is lawful just because he says "never compromise" a couple of times.

I disagree. To Hitler, what he was doing was right (I personally disagree, and think that it would be wrong to not oppose him, but I still wouldn't call even him objectively evil, only evil in my subjective worldview). I guarantee there is no person who cannot find some way to rationalize why what they are doing is good. Why? Because it isn't objective. If there is a character who doesn't see themselves as in the right, then in my opinion, that's just bad storytelling, since it's not something that is believable to the players, and it severely limits character development. Everyone has good intentions, and to not have that fact included in a story is to distance the players from the plot and the characters. A similar concept applies to perfectly good characters. It's impossible to have a concrete definition (that not quite good enough character thinks that the perfect character is evil in some things that they do, and vice versa). Honestly, if you have any characters that are fitting the OP's definition of "good" or "evil," then they don't belong in anything that contains any focus on story whatsoever, because it's impossible to have character development, and the players have no way to view that "character" as anything more than an unthinking robot programed to be the way that they are, rather than an actual character.

[Yitzi]

I disagree. To Hitler, what he was doing was right (I personally disagree, and think that it would be wrong to not oppose him, but I still wouldn't call even him objectively evil, only evil in my subjective worldview). I guarantee there is no person who cannot find some way to rationalize why what they are doing is good. Why? Because it isn't objective. If there is a character who doesn't see themselves as in the right, then in my opinion, that's just bad storytelling, since it's not something that is believable to the players, and it severely limits character development. Everyone has good intentions, and to not have that fact included in a story is to distance the players from the plot and the characters. A similar concept applies to perfectly good characters. It's impossible to have a concrete definition (that not quite good enough character thinks that the perfect character is evil in some things that they do, and vice versa). Honestly, if you have any characters that are fitting the OP's definition of "good" or "evil," then they don't belong in anything that contains any focus on story whatsoever, because it's impossible to have character development, and the players have no way to view that "character" as anything more than an unthinking robot programed to be the way that they are, rather than an actual character.

Not true. There are people who recognize what they do as evil, and do it anyway. Real-life examples are hard to find, but certainly good storytelling has plenty; Xykon is actually a pretty good example.

[Frozen_Feet]

Thank you for illustrating my point. What you failed to understand is that within specific framework, such as defined game rules, you can logically attach labels to things, and those labels will hold regardless of opinion. The only way to deny those labels is to deny the underlying rules.

For example, I can make a system where eating sugar is always evil. Even if a character thinks it is not, within that system, he is. The only way eating sugar won't make him evil is going outside the system, which he can't do because he is defined by it. In the same manner as you can't defy natural laws.

Saying "but it is subjective!" is synonymous to "you can't make binding rules for it!", which is false in the context of a game. The only thing that prevents a rule from being binding is unwillingness of people to follow it.

[Plato Play-Doh]

I suppose that's true, though I'm pretty sure I remember (not quite sure where) a time or two where Xykon essentially said that calling things "good" or "evil" was naive...personally, I think Xykon sees morals as meaningless, rather than actively trying to be immoral. He's more nihilistic than anything else. I suppose that it is true that people can recognize their own evil, Tarquin being an example of this, though he thinks that his evil actions are going to lead to peace. I suppose that even someone who intentionally acts immorally, simply because it's immoral, could actually be a pretty significant plot point given good characterization, so my argument that it was impossible to make a good story containing those sorts of characters was wrong, I suppose. However, the subjectivity of the matter (which is shown by how much people argue over definitions) still leads me to believe that alignment should not be enforced, and more a part of roleplay, and that the OP is increasing the amount that it is oversimplified, and that this is the opposite of what I would like to see. I guess that is just my personal preference, though, and I can see why some people may have a desire for such a guideline. However, I do disagree with the changes that the OP has made, even assuming that the alignment system works. To me, it should at least be a spectrum, rather than the very distinct points that this alternative creates.

Edit: The above was a reply to Yitzi, and Frozen Feet posted while I was typing, so I'll respond FF here. It's not that you can't have a system where alignment makes sense; a world where those subjective things were enforced objectively as part of the fundamental laws of the universe could create a good narrative, but I don't think that it should be the default. I don't think that world is nearly as interesting if it is the norm, as its coolness lies in its uniqueness, in my opinion, and it loses that from being commonplace.

[Frozen_Feet]

In D&D it *is* the default. You want something else, don't play it. More spefically, this variant seems to aim at making alignment more objective, though in a limited sense. It runs counter to your philosophy.

[Plato Play-Doh]

In D&D it *is* the default. You want something else, don't play it. More spefically, this variant seems to aim at making alignment more objective, though in a limited sense. It runs counter to your philosophy.

It does indeed, which is why I stated my reasons for objecting to it. I personally think that if you are going to modify the alignment system, it should be to make it more subjective, rather than the other way around. Obviously, the OP does not share my preferences, but that is what this forum is for: sharing and discussing ideas. I decided to add my thoughts to the discourse, and anybody else can look at it and agree or disagree as they see fit.

[Geordnet]

I see a potential problem--if you have such high standards for qualifying as an alignment, is the system even going to be in significant use?

No, not really.

Which is kinda the point.

The problem which others have pointed out is that Good and Evil are the agreed upon alignments. Everyone (I think) already agreed that Good is people who help others, Evil is people who only help themselves, and Neutral is people who help friends and family. More vague and more in need of a fix is Law v Chaos.

Apparently the traditional Good vs. Evil system is not so clear, since I saw just the other day a definition of that axis which used the same definition for Neutral as you used for Evil.

And if Law vs. Chaos is currently vague, that's to this system's advantage: players won't have as many preconceptions to get in the way.

If any alignments in your chart are beyond human capabilities, it would be Law and Chaos. Strict adherence to rules and complete anarchy?

Those are only the extremes. And yes, they are as humanly impossible as the extremes of Good and Evil. (But people romanticize about them much less often, which is why they don't need a separate category.)

Honestly, the way I see it, the problem with the alignment system is that it forces people into one of 9 categories, and oversimplifies characters. [...] Coming from this perspective, it seems like you are simplifying things even farther, which is, in my opinion, going in the exact wrong direction.

I think that's more a problem with the way people treat the system than with the system itself, but even if so I think this system would decrease the "straightjacket effect". Since there's basically 3 categories to chose from instead of 9, each category would contain a wider range of variability.

Hopefully, when people realize that Robin Hood has the same alignment as an orc, they'll get the message.

For example, you can make a system under which Hitler can without contradiction be Good.

INGSOC.

First, your definitions are poor and near non-existent for what the alignments mean. You attempt to define them mostly through examples, but that brings me to my second point: your examples are god-awful, and you must explain why they fall in their respective categories.

I'm working on it. I'm not a no expert writer, though. For what it's worth, though, I'll answer as many questions as you'd like.

Third, barrier of entry for both good and evil are both ridiculously high. You're short-shelling how good people can be without being flawless, and how evil seemingly ordinary people can be.

Then it seems to me like you don't get the point of it. The thresholds for Good and Evil are defined in terms of what humans are psychologically capable of. If a large number of people fall into of of these two categories, then the bar needs to be raised.

People like the Joker do exist, but they make up more like 1% of population rather than 0,0001%. Likewise, people like Ghandhi might make up just 1% of mortals, but that's still a significant number.

There are NOT seventy million insane, sadistic, psychopathic serial killers in the world. (I could be wrong, but I certainly hope not!) I doubt there's even seven thousand. I'll admit to the possibility of that many saintly people existing, though, since they don't call attention to themselves like pure Evil does.

I disagree. To Hitler, what he was doing was right (I personally disagree, and think that it would be wrong to not oppose him, but I still wouldn't call even him objectively evil, only evil in my subjective worldview). I guarantee there is no person who cannot find some way to rationalize why what they are doing is good.

You see, this is why the criteria for mortals are so extreme.

And, believe it or not, they are actually slacker than I'd like. They would be by definition things which are impossible to rationalize, if this didn't mean that we (as humans) wouldn't be able to even imagine it!

Not true. There are people who recognize what they do as evil, and do it anyway. Real-life examples are hard to find, but certainly good storytelling has plenty; Xykon is actually a pretty good example.

It is not a coincidence that I listed Xykon as Evil...

More spefically, this variant seems to aim at making alignment more objective, though in a limited sense. It runs counter to your philosophy.

I suppose there will always be such differences. I'm just trying to make a system that I'm happy with; I make no guarantee about others.

[TuggyNE]

So, OP, it would seem that your solution to the problem of ill-defined alignments is to define them entirely out of use, reducing the effective number of alignments from 9 to 5, and then to 3. This is likely to rub a lot of people the wrong way, because (however unarguably correct it may be) it has very little descriptive power. If, as you say, both Robin Hood and average orcs are both Chaotic (with no other qualifiers), why bother even describing them as such at all? What meaningful information is conveyed?

The existing 9-point alignment system suffers this to some extent as well, of course, but making it more blatant does not seem to be a good development. (If anything, I might want to reverse the process.)

[Frathe]

So, OP, it would seem that your solution to the problem of ill-defined alignments is to define them entirely out of use, reducing the effective number of alignments from 9 to 5, and then to 3. This is likely to rub a lot of people the wrong way, because (however unarguably correct it may be) it has very little descriptive power. If, as you say, both Robin Hood and average orcs are both Chaotic (with no other qualifiers), why bother even describing them as such at all? What meaningful information is conveyed?

The existing 9-point alignment system suffers this to some extent as well, of course, but making it more blatant does not seem to be a good development. (If anything, I might want to reverse the process.)

This is kind of what I was trying to say earlier. If (the vast majority of) mortals can only achieve one of three alignments, how much of a point is there to the system? Dividing everyone into three groups doesn't seems very helpful for a granularly descriptive system; rather, it seems like such broad strokes that it becomes largely meaningless. If two people who are utterly unlike and would fight each other on the opposite sides of a moral battle are classified as the same alignment, what's the point? (take a Robin Hood-esque adventurer in a D&D setting battling orcs as an example) You've lost part of the point of D&D alignment, as inconsistent as it can be: that people of the same alignment have enough in common that they generally might plausibly work together.

[Razanir]

INGSOC.

Ingsoc doubleplusgood. Geordnet crimethinked. Geordnet will come with Razanir to Miniluv.

This is kind of what I was trying to say earlier. If (the vast majority of) mortals can only achieve one of three alignments, how much of a point is there to the system? Dividing everyone into three groups doesn't seems very helpful for a granularly descriptive system; rather, it seems like such broad strokes that it becomes largely meaningless. If two people who are utterly unlike and would fight each other on the opposite sides of a moral battle are classified as the same alignment, what's the point? (take a Robin Hood-esque adventurer in a D&D setting battling orcs as an example) You've lost part of the point of D&D alignment, as inconsistent as it can be: that people of the same alignment have enough in common that they generally might plausibly work together.

This. The nice thing about the traditional alignment system is that any two people should be able to find a common cause, although it's much less likely with the Evil alignments and especially with Chaotic Evil. That and Frathe makes a good point about it being too vague of an alignment system if Robin Hood and orc bandits are the exact same

[Yitzi]

I suppose that's true, though I'm pretty sure I remember (not quite sure where) a time or two where Xykon essentially said that calling things "good" or "evil" was naive...personally, I think Xykon sees morals as meaningless, rather than actively trying to be immoral. He's more nihilistic than anything else.

Nihilism, at least of Xykon's style, has pretty strong tendencies toward evil.

I suppose that it is true that people can recognize their own evil, Tarquin being an example of this, though he thinks that his evil actions are going to lead to peace.

Unless that whole monologue was just to play with Elan's mind.

I suppose that even someone who intentionally acts immorally, simply because it's immoral, could actually be a pretty significant plot point given good characterization

Nah, such people are very rare and almost impossible to characterize well. A better example would be someone who knows that it's immoral and simply doesn't care.

However, the subjectivity of the matter (which is shown by how much people argue over definitions) still leads me to believe that alignment should not be enforced, and more a part of roleplay

I think alignment definitely should be mainly an aspect of roleplay, and should be enforced only in that roleplay decisions have consequences.

Saying "you have to act in way X because you're alignment Y" is absurd; if the DM feels that someone is not acting according to their stated alignment, the answer is to change their alignment to match their actions, not to restrict their actions.

even assuming that the alignment system works. To me, it should at least be a spectrum, rather than the very distinct points that this alternative creates.

I think it's easiest to describe things with discrete points, and as long as people keep in mind the limitations of such a method it's not really a problem.

INGSOC.

No; Ingsoc would actually consider Hitler to be doubleplusungood due to his opposition to communism.

The easiest way to design a self-consistent moral system that would mark Hitler as good is to take a normal self-consistent moral system (e.g. utilitarian or whatever) which marks him as evil, and simply reverse it (exchange "good" with "evil" throughout).

It is not a coincidence that I listed Xykon as Evil...

That listing is what I was referring to when I said that it's a pretty good example.

[Geordnet]

This is likely to rub a lot of people the wrong way, because (however unarguably correct it may be) it has very little descriptive power.

I would say that is a good thing, since it forces the player to fill in the holes.

Dividing everyone into three groups doesn't seems very helpful for a granularly descriptive system; rather, it seems like such broad strokes that it becomes largely meaningless.

Granularity is not the goal here. In fact, the opposite is true: it's the fine details that are easier to argue over.

And three alignments is more than enough. If I had limited alignments to Good-Neutral-Evil instead of Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic, would you have objected as much?

If two people who are utterly unlike and would fight each other on the opposite sides of a moral battle are classified as the same alignment, what's the point? (take a Robin Hood-esque adventurer in a D&D setting battling orcs as an example) You've lost part of the point of D&D alignment, as inconsistent as it can be: that people of the same alignment have enough in common that they generally might plausibly work together.

Good then! This is the sort of thinking we're probably better off without, I think.

The point of alignment is a game mechanic (for spell effects and such). It is not supposed to decide if you should fight or befriend someone: that's what roleplay is for.


At least, that's my philosophy- and ergo the philosophy behind this system.