Alternate Alignment System ("Inverse Conjunction")

[Yitzi]

Welcome to 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons!

Seriously, there's a handy graph for categorizing characters at end of the PHB. Just sayin'.

On the other hand, 1st edition, as far as I can tell from what I've read, saw alignments more as "teams" than ways of describing individuals, which is NOT what later versions have (and I think that change is for the better).

Although, I'm wondering what that graph looks like (if it's not a copyright issue.)

[Frozen_Feet]

Here you go.

Regarding 1st Ed's conception of alignment... you're maybe half right. By time of 1st Ed AD&D, alignment had already developed significantly from its roots. It's main purpose was tracking consistency of character actions - essentially, monitoring character development. This was because several classes had to follow a very narrow path or lose their "unique snowflake" privileges.

The original idea may have been to divide characters into "teams", but alignments are also defined pretty clearly in terms of what kind of life philosophy they represent.

[Yitzi]

Here you go.

That's not exactly a very handy graph, though it does give some sense of what's going on. (In particular, I find it interesting that Neutral is not adjacent to the corner alignments.)

[Yitzi]

I've thought over the OP some more, and while I disagree with much of it, I think the idea of having "good" and "evil" alignments be fairly rare* may be a good one, if other alignments (e.g. selfish/altruistic) are added to take up the slack in descriptive power and it's recognized that someone can still be considered good/evil without a good/evil alignment. That way, you still have moral extremes for when players want to know that someone needs killing and to use paladin powers on, but it's rare enough that it doesn't hit the cases which are controversial whether they're really evil even in the non-alignment sense.


*Say, Redcloak and Tsukiko wouldn't have an evil alignment, but Xykon would. Tarquin is questionable, depending on whether he actually believed the justification he told Elan.

[Geordnet]

I've thought over the OP some more, and while I disagree with much of it, I think the idea of having "good" and "evil" alignments be fairly rare* may be a good one, if other alignments (e.g. selfish/altruistic) are added to take up the slack in descriptive power and it's recognized that someone can still be considered good/evil without a good/evil alignment.

Then you may be interested in this other idea I had:

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps we could rotate the cells 45 degrees, maybe? Then you'd end up with something like this:

{table]Good|Chaotic Good|Chaotic
Lawful Good|Neutral|Chaotic Evil
Lawful|Lawful Evil|Evil[/table]

(Just imagine that rotated 45 degrees clockwise.)


It's just a thought, though. I'm thinking that your idea might be better overall, really; if only because more people would understand and accept it.


EDIT:
Here's a better view.
{table]||PG||
|LG||CG|
LN||TN||CN
|LE||CE|
||PE||[/table]

Effectively, you've now got a system with a 5-step gradient on the Good-Evil axis, but where the gradient on the Law-Chaos axis varies.

So, those whom are neither good nor bad are sorted into three groups based on Law/Chaos, while those whom are more good or evil than average (but neither the most good nor the most evil) are only sorted into two.

But I think you're missing the point of this system: "selfish" and "altruistic" are both things that everyone is from time to time. Using them as names of alignments is just asking for more arguments. Better just to make it understood that there are both selfish and altruistic people in each of the three primary (Law-Chaos) alignments.

*Say, Redcloak and Tsukiko wouldn't have an evil alignment, but Xykon would. Tarquin is questionable, depending on whether he actually believed the justification he told Elan.

Yeah, you got it.

[Yitzi]

Then you may be interested in this other idea I had

Not really. I like the idea of having it as a "square"; I just feel that "good" and "evil" are strong enough to have a special status in being rare.

But I think you're missing the point of this system

Not really; it's more that I'm taking your idea and using it for my own point.

"selfish" and "altruistic" are both things that everyone is from time to time.

True, but some are motivated primarily by one, and some primarily by the other.

In fact, I was thinking of having five "normal" axes, plus good/evil:

-Altrustic/Selfish. This is whether they're motivated mainly to benefit themselves or to benefit others. (Neutrality would be an even mix, or if they care about family/friends but not about others.)
-Benevolent/Baneful. A benevolent character primarily seeks to achieve their goal by helping others, a baneful character primarily seeks to achieve their goal by harming others. (Neutrality would be an even mix, or someone who ignores others entirely.) Adventurers are nearly always baneful. (And the exceptions are pretty much always found in support roles.)
-Lawful/Uninhibited. This is whether they think of things in terms of right and wrong/acceptable or not/permissible or not (lawful), have no lines they are unwilling to cross to achieve their goal (uninhibited), or have lines they will not cross but don't see it as a question of right and wrong (neutral).
-Orderly/Chaotic. This is whether they prefer order or chaos (neutrality would be an even mix.)
-Thoughtful/Spontaneous. Just what it sounds like.

[Geordnet]

Not really; it's more that I'm taking your idea and using it for my own point.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Still, it's far easier to argue if a certain action is selfish/altruistic than if it is good/evil...

[hamishspence]

Not that easy. Practically any action, up to and including "dying to save others" can be rationalized as selfish. Especially in a world with an afterlife, like D&D.

[Yitzi]

Fair enough, I suppose.

Still, it's far easier to argue if a certain action is selfish/altruistic than if it is good/evil...

It's easier to argue about an action, but harder to argue about a character, and most of the argument is on the character level.

[Synovia]

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).

Then a heavily regimented serial killer is Good. He keeps to his own standards.

[Synovia]

But I think you're missing the point of this system: "selfish" and "altruistic" are both things that everyone is from time to time.

Everyone is also "Good" and "Evil" at times. Everyone is "Lawful" and "Chaotic" at times. People aren't generally consistent in every action they take, especially if you don't weight for circumstance.

So trying to evaluate to that level is just silly.

[Frathe]

In fact, I was thinking of having five "normal" axes, plus good/evil:

-Altrustic/Selfish. This is whether they're motivated mainly to benefit themselves or to benefit others. (Neutrality would be an even mix, or if they care about family/friends but not about others.)
-Benevolent/Baneful. A benevolent character primarily seeks to achieve their goal by helping others, a baneful character primarily seeks to achieve their goal by harming others. (Neutrality would be an even mix, or someone who ignores others entirely.) Adventurers are nearly always baneful. (And the exceptions are pretty much always found in support roles.)
-Lawful/Uninhibited. This is whether they think of things in terms of right and wrong/acceptable or not/permissible or not (lawful), have no lines they are unwilling to cross to achieve their goal (uninhibited), or have lines they will not cross but don't see it as a question of right and wrong (neutral).
-Orderly/Chaotic. This is whether they prefer order or chaos (neutrality would be an even mix.)
-Thoughtful/Spontaneous. Just what it sounds like.

I understand the axes and the desire to have them, but some of them seem nearly overlapping (e.g., Lawful/Uninhibited and Thoughtful/Spontaneous, or Lawful/Uninhibited and Orderly/Chaotic). I can see differences, but to me some traits are unclear and would affect both of two axes simultaneously--for example, if someone acts in an uninhibited manner, it doesn't make a big difference to an outside observer if they thought first but are "Uninhibited" or if they have standards but didn't think (are "Spontaneous"). I can see the difference, but it could be hard to judge from looking objectively at just behavior.

Five axes seems like an awful lot, especially to explain to new players, and at this point it's more of a personality evaluation than an alignment system. While that could work, I'm afraid it's trying to define too much.

[Geordnet]

Not that easy. Practically any action, up to and including "dying to save others" can be rationalized as selfish. Especially in a world with an afterlife, like D&D.

By "easier to argue", I meant "easier for two people to come up with contrary opinions". (As you have just demonstrated.)

Then a heavily regimented serial killer is Good. He keeps to his own standards.

*facepalm*

In the proper context for that quote, I was arguing that Batman's self-enforced moral code was a Good trait, not a Lawful trait. (And no, I don't want to go back to that topic.)

Everyone is also "Good" and "Evil" at times. Everyone is "Lawful" and "Chaotic" at times. People aren't generally consistent in every action they take, especially if you don't weight for circumstance.

So trying to evaluate to that level is just silly.

Which is why I am not trying to.

I'm just applying a (mostly) arbitrary categorization so we don't have to sit down an have a lengthy philosophical debate every time a paladin uses Smite Evil. (See the "Alignment Contract" I drafted:)

Spoiler

Show

It's a tragic thing, that I think is rooted in simple human nature. There will always have people who are lazy and need to be reigned in by the GM if they are to play a believable character, but by the same token there will always be people whom are sincere and honest about their roleplay.

It is a sad fact that any universal rules set to control the former group will also limit the freedom of the latter. The same restrictions against improper actions will invariably restrict some proper ones as well.

Honestly, I don't think any rule or system will ever fix this. It's "endemic to the human condition". Finding a good group and especially a good GM is all one can really do.


Anyways, alignment is caught up in all of this mess. That's why I think it is paramount to detach it from roleplay altogether. It started as a game mechanic, let it become so once again- and no more.

I think maybe the best bet would be to edit that "contract" I wrote up earlier:

Spoiler

Show

Alignment has no place in roleplay. AT ALL. You should know what your character thinks, you should know what he finds morally repugnant, you should know what he respects. If you can't figure out what your character will do in a situation without even thinking about Alignment, then you need to develop a better understanding of your character. Until then, you still shouldn't think about Alignment; just do what you would do in the situation.

The purpose of Alignment is not to describe a character. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of describing a character is to determine its Alignment. Alignment's sole purpose is as a game mechanic: just imagine if every time someone cast Protection from Evil, the GM had to stop and think about who would or would not count as Evil for the purposes of the spell.

There is a significant amount of overlap in Alignment categories. For instance, a certain character could be classified as LG, but could just as validly be considered NG, LN, or even TN. He could be in any of those categories and not be out of place, but his Alignment should be left where it is until there is a significant reason why should change.

When a character is created, the creator assigns it an intended Alignment- arbitrarily, if need be. If you're having a hard time deciding, just go with whatever is closest to Neutral. After creation, if the controlling player thinks the character's alignment should be different, then with the GM's approval it can change. (Exactly when the change comes into effect is up to the GM, but it is recommended that this happens during "down time" between adventures.) If the GM feels if the character has consistently acted outside of its Alignment, he may change it at any time.

Formalize this, work out any problems with it, get it into a form of an agreement on both the players' and GM's parts, and maybe it'd be something worth sharing. I don't know if it would work, honestly; the kind of people who'd want it are the kind who probably don't need it...

EDIT:
I'll try to stay clear of this whole mess, though, and mainly just answer questions about the titular system.

[hamishspence]

By "easier to argue", I meant "easier for two people to come up with contrary opinions". (As you have just demonstrated.)

Ah.

I thought you meant it was easier to decide on a satisfactory answer as to whether an action was altruistic or selfish.

With Good and Evil being much more a case of personal belief- hence harder to decide on.

[Yitzi]

I understand the axes and the desire to have them, but some of them seem nearly overlapping (e.g., Lawful/Uninhibited and Thoughtful/Spontaneous, or Lawful/Uninhibited and Orderly/Chaotic).

Not quite; they're related, but not identical, and I'd estimate that at least 90% of alignment arguments regarding the Law/Chaos axis are due to the fact that they're not identical, so you can have someone who pushes along one of them toward Law and the other toward Chaos.

I can see differences, but to me some traits are unclear and would affect both of two axes simultaneously--for example, if someone acts in an uninhibited manner, it doesn't make a big difference to an outside observer if they thought first but are "Uninhibited" or if they have standards but didn't think (are "Spontaneous").

It can sometimes be difficult to tell which from a single action, but from a larger pattern it should be clear, as there are many cases where only one works. (Being spontaneous will never lead to premeditated murder, whereas being uninhibited is often required for it. Being uninhibited will never lead to counterproductive actions, but being spontaneous often will.)

For a good example, consider someone who's altruistic, orderly, and baneful. If hes lawful and spontaneous, you get a hot-headed zealot, whereas if he's uninhibited and methodical you get a utilitarian whose favored method is removing obstacles toward the proper functioning of systems. Quite a difference there, isn't it? (Not coincidentally, both are highly unclear where they fall on the Law/Chaos axis.)

Five axes seems like an awful lot, especially to explain to new players, and at this point it's more of a personality evaluation than an alignment system.

It is essentially meant as a personality description, as that seems to me to be the most important usage of alignment. As for being a lot...I figure that if someone isn't clearly one or the other, they can just leave it out (i.e. neutral), and then if it becomes clear it can be added.

While that could work, I'm afraid it's trying to define too much.

You could always use a smaller subset of the five and it'll work too (but with less descriptive power); the main goal is not to combine several into a single axis.

[Geordnet]

It is essentially meant as a personality description, as that seems to me to be the most important usage of alignment.

And here is the one key thing that is incompatible with my system.

My system is not designed to describe personality. In fact, it is designed specifically to say as little about personality as possible.

If you're looking for a system to describe personality, go elsewhere. (I suggest giving the whole thing up; I'm convinced it's a futile effort.)

[Frathe]

If you're looking for a system to describe personality, go elsewhere. (I suggest giving the whole thing up; I'm convinced it's a futile effort.)

How encouraging.

You know, if you really do just want alignment for spell effects (detect X, smite X, etc.), it would pretty much work to just assign it arbitrarily. "There are two kinds of people, those who X and those who Y.", and you can only smite "those who X". Extend to "X, Y, and Z" or even further if you want a system with a greater number of alignments.

My point is that if you detach alignment from personality, and really just want it for spell effects, you could just assign it based on somewhat arbitrary standards (moral or otherwise). Example: someone who has killed another person is Evil, everyone else is neutral except for people who have saved a life (who are good). If you've both killed and saved lives, you're back to Neutral.

[Geordnet]

How encouraging.

Why do you think I've given up on it?


And yes, you can use pretty much any arbitrary distinction you want.
(Not that I would recommend going that far from convention...)

[Frathe]

Why do you think I've given up on it?

I meant your tone.

[Yitzi]

And here is the one key thing that is incompatible with my system.

My system is not designed to describe personality. In fact, it is designed specifically to say as little about personality as possible.

Even so, one aspect of it is useful for my purpose, which does largely involve describing personality. As I said, it's not really compatible with your system, but does take a bit of inspiration.

[Geordnet]

I meant your tone.

Sorry then; it's kind of hard to work with 'tone' in a text-based medium.