Alignment System

[Drolyt]

Edit: Nobody really likes this. I have to agree with them after some thought. My idea was to simplify the system but allow for more flexibility in interpreting the alignments (eg Lawful Good doesn't mean you always have to follow the law). Instead I think there are only really 3 good solutions: Do away with alignment, expand on it and actually make it more complex, or use a completely different system from what exists in D&D 3.5. End Edit. Alright, I've been thinking that to make the alignment system a little more sensible why not drop out all the "in-between" alignments, aka the neutral alignments? You would be left with Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil, and then Unaligned. Some campaigns will have a "True Neutral", which would be different from Unaligned in that it actively seeks balance, but I don't think it's appropriate for most campaigns (though you would need it for Planescape). Here's my reasoning: Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is. Lawful Good is clearly a Good Character that puts an emphasis on legitimate authority, and Neutral Good is someone who is just plain Good, not caring about authority. So what is Chaotic Good? It can't be someone who actively fights against legitimate authority, since that goes against the concept of Good. It is someone who thinks that freedom is more important than legitimate authority, but how is that different from Neutral Good? Since Neutral Good and Chaotic Good are essentially the same, I think it's better to axe the Neutral part so as to maintain the Dichotomy between Law and Chaos. As for Neutral Evil, the definition is simply self-serving. I don't see how that is different from Chaotic Evil, except for the fact that many people seem to define Chaotic Evil as insane, which is odd since to me insane would imply Unaligned the same way Animals are Unaligned, they can't reason for themselves. Lawful Evil implies at least some respect for custom and tradition, and perhaps some level of honor, but again, it makes more sense to axe Neutral Evil. As for Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, these make more sense to keep, but in the end they usually end up either being played as Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid, or Lawful Neutral is played like Lawful Good/Evil while Chaotic Neutral is just played as Neutral. In the end both Neutral and Chaotic Neutral make more sense as Unaligned, while Lawful Neutral is rarely played satisfactorily and would mess up the dichotomies of this system. What does everyone think? Do you prefer the traditional Alignment system, no alignment system, 4th Edition Alignment? Comments are welcome.

[Drolyt]

Reserved for future use.

[mummy162]

This is basically the 4E alignment system, which I hate. There are two problems with it:

• This makes it harder to have alignment requirements. It eliminates alignment options for such classes as bard and druid. Unless you want to get rid of alignment requirements altogether, you need neutral.
• Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all very distinct. Lawful Neutral characters are the judges and moderators of the alignment system, not caring for morality, only justice. True Neutral obviously is Neutral towards everything. Chaotic Neutral characters don't care much one way or another towards other people, and disregard the law. Lawful Evil are the tyrants, Neutral Evil the servants of death, and Chaotic Evil pure slaughtering machines.

[Drolyt]

This is basically the 4E alignment system, which I hate. There are two problems with it:

• This makes it harder to have alignment requirements. It eliminates alignment options for such classes as bard and druid. Unless you want to get rid of alignment requirements altogether, you need neutral.
• Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all very distinct. Lawful Neutral characters are the judges and moderators of the alignment system, not caring for morality, only justice. True Neutral obviously is Neutral towards everything. Chaotic Neutral characters don't care much one way or another towards other people, and disregard the law. Lawful Evil are the tyrants, Neutral Evil the servants of death, and Chaotic Evil pure slaughtering machines.

Well... your descriptions of Neutral and Chaotic Neutral don't seem very different to me. As for your description of Chaotic Evil, why can't those be classified as Neutral Evil? Why can't servants of death be Chaotic Evil? Also, how are pure slaughtering machines realistic? Like I said above, Lawful Neutral is the one I wasn't sure about, but I think most unaligned people are into traditions anyways. Thing is, why would you serve the law if you don't care about good or evil? Purely lawful and purely chaotic just make no sense to me, it doesn't seem like things people would fight for. Although to be honest Evil doesn't seem like something anyone would actually seek, I usually think of evil as self serving and good as helping others. A Paladin of good makes sense. Of law? Of chaos? Of evil? I don't get it. And yeah I'm not into alignment requirements.

[pyrefiend]

Your system seems to assume that characters who are neutrally aligned on the law-chaos axis have no regard for authority, but that's not true. Neutral characters follow legitimate authority when it serves them to do so. Lawful characters tend to follow authority even when it doesn't serve them, and Chaotic characters tend to not follow authority even when it doesn't serve them to do so.

Thus lawful neutralstrictly follows authority, true neutral generally follows authority, and chaotic neutral does not follow authority.

Also, a chaotic evil person is not necessarily a murderous berserker.

[Agi Hammerthief]

Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:

• Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
• Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
• Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.

[pyrefiend]

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:

• Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
• Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
• Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.

I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.

[Vemynal]

* Lawful Neutral - The Law above all else (even good or evil)
* True Neutral - I think Roy's sis said it best, "I go both ways"
* Chaotic Neutral - Personal freedom above all else (different from chaotic good in my mind because Chaotic good will only use good methods while Chaotic neutral might protest or might bomb civilians)

* Lawful Evil - I am the law
* Neutral Evil - Observes laws that benefit themselves while ignoring laws that don't
*Chaotic Evil - My personal freedom above all else (likely to make that bomb and will enjoy killing those innocent people)

and just because I love it so much:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...uperheroes.jpg

[Agi Hammerthief]

I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.

are they incorrect to the point where they are not a valid point against the OPs sentiment that

Nobody actually knows what the difference between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good is

??

its a long way from "Nobodo Knows" to "People Don't Agree"

the examples I've given are the extreme corners of each alignment
chaotic good starts with disobedience and has active oposition at the far end.

I seen the Neutrals as a narrow band in the middle,
like the bit of the seasaw that doesn't see any up or down, even though all the motion goes through it.

[Drolyt]

Answering everyone in order:

Your system seems to assume that characters who are neutrally aligned on the law-chaos axis have no regard for authority, but that's not true. Neutral characters follow legitimate authority when it serves them to do so. Lawful characters tend to follow authority even when it doesn't serve them, and Chaotic characters tend to not follow authority even when it doesn't serve them to do so.

Thus lawful neutralstrictly follows authority, true neutral generally follows authority, and chaotic neutral does not follow authority.

Also, a chaotic evil person is not necessarily a murderous berserker.

I suppose my problem with this is that I don't see Chaotic characters as not following authority, I see them as following authority so long as it suits their purposes, but not placing any inherent value in it. That is, unless they are insane a Chaotic Good character will see the value of a good political system, but they believe that freedom and justice are more important. By contrast a Lawful Good character thinks that legitimate, emphasis on legitimate, authority is more important than individual freedom. You could argue Neutral good is an in between, but I don't think its necessary.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html

it helps to go through the whole spectrum to see the difference:

* Lawful God - active enforcer of Law, happy to oppress people to conform with what they think is Good and Orderly.
* Neutral Good - does as told, as long as its good, can't be bothered to cause trouble.
* Chaotic Good - active opposer of people who force their rules upon others.

That's insane. Oppression is not good. I don't think that scheme works at all.

I believe all of these are incorrect, and here's why:

Lawful Good: Law and Good are both objective, so you can't really oppress people and still be good, even if you believe what you are doing is good.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character can still cause trouble. They certainly wouldn't be in favor of evil establishments.
Chaotic Good: Being chaotic does mean you have a greater predilection toward stopping oppression, but you don't have to act against authority figures to be chaotic. You just have to disobey them.

See, you aren't giving any tangible differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Or at the very least I'm not understanding them.

??

its a long way from "Nobodo Knows" to "People Don't Agree"

the examples I've given are the extreme corners of each alignment
chaotic good starts with disobedience and has active oposition at the far end.

I seen the Neutrals as a narrow band in the middle,
like the bit of the seasaw that doesn't see any up or down, even though all the motion goes through it.

I have to agree with you on one point, I should not have put "Nobody Knows". However, nobody agrees on it. My problem with the neutrals isn't that they can't be used effectively, its just that they are so much harder to define than the extreme alignments that I don't' think they serve a useful purpose in the game.
Edit: Am I to take the lack of support to mean nobody likes it, or simply that anybody who likes it didn't post?

[Harperfan7]

Does the PHB just not make it clear enough?

LG - works for LG, LN, and NG
NG - works for LG, NG, and CG
CG - works with NG, CG, and CN

A lawful character won't work for a chaotic purpose.
A chaotic character won't work for a lawful purpose.

Are you saying there isn't anybody who would work for either, as long as good comes from it?

[Agi Hammerthief]

nobody agrees on it.
My problem with the neutrals isn't that they can't be used effectively, its just that they are so much harder to define than the extreme alignments that I don't' think they serve a useful purpose in the game.

look at my example of the seesaw:

the part that is definitely UP is connected via the middle to the part that is definitely DOWN

the path between UP and Down is gradual, and I guess most players agree that the transition from GOOD to EVIL / CHAOS to LAWFUL also gradual

so per definition, in order to have a gradual transition you need a bit in the middle.


what we are lacking is just an agreement on where the part (alignment) we call middle (NEUTRAL) starts.
How much disobedience of a "Neutral" PC makes him Chaotic, when does adherence to Laws make him lawful?

IMO this lack of agrement is no excuse to go lazy and cut it out the neutral midle entirely
this breaks the alignment system just as sure an you break a seesaw by cutting the through the plank.

[Drolyt]

Does the PHB just not make it clear enough?

LG - works for LG, LN, and NG
NG - works for LG, NG, and CG
CG - works with NG, CG, and CN

A lawful character won't work for a chaotic purpose.
A chaotic character won't work for a lawful purpose.

Are you saying there isn't anybody who would work for either, as long as good comes from it?

I'm saying that both LG and CG would work for either as long as good comes of it.
Got Ninja'd:

look at my example of the seesaw:

the part that is definitely UP is connected via the middle to the part that is definitely DOWN

the path between UP and Down is gradual, and I guess most players agree that the transition from GOOD to EVIL / CHAOS to LAWFUL also gradual

so per definition, in order to have a gradual transition you need a bit in the middle.


what we are lacking is just an agreement on where the part (alignment) we call middle (NEUTRAL) starts.
How much disobedience of a "Neutral" PC makes him Chaotic, when does adherence to Laws make him lawful?

IMO this lack of agrement is no excuse to go lazy and cut it out the neutral midle entirely
this breaks the alignment system just as sure an you break a seesaw by cutting the through the plank.

I thought of the transition problem too. I think, however, that pretty much everyone leans to one side or the other. I have unaligned there, though in my mind that's for people in between good and evil. Thing is the moral axis is much more grounded in real life, the ethical axis is not how humans in the real world behave. There are people who devote themselves to good, and people who are genuinely evil (or at least misguided), but no one "devotes" themselves to chaos or law. Those who believe law is best for the people and act on it are almost certainly lawful good, or (if they are Well-Intentioned Extremists) Lawful Evil. Those who favor law but don't act on it are simply unaligned. My point is if you don't act on your beliefs you are unaligned/neutral, but if you do you are either seeking self interest (and are therefore evil), or for a higher cause (and are therefore good). So in my mind Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral make no sense.

[Zexion]

Just to clear up alignment:

Lawful
Predictable in which that they have a certain way of doing things, that does not infringe on the law. Follows the spirit of agreements, not the actual legal wording.
Neutral
Will obviously like his neighbors following the law, but sometimes will exploit loopholes in agreements and... yeah.
Chaotic
Believes in free expression. NOT an average guy. Usually believes in a form of law where everyone has their voice heard.

[Jane_Smith]

You said yourself;

I suppose my problem with this is that I don't see Chaotic characters as not following authority

Thus your issues with the alignment system are your own opinion - do as you will.

I for one dislike this idea. Personally - the only alignment system I have truely enjoyed isnt an alignment system at all. Toss all alignment based feats, spells, etc, or remodel them, and use the d20 modern allegiance system. To me, having your top 3 priorties in life listed seems more important then stating if your lawful stupid or chaotic moronic.

[Drolyt]

You said yourself;



Thus your issues with the alignment system are your own opinion - do as you will.

I for one dislike this idea. Personally - the only alignment system I have truely enjoyed isnt an alignment system at all. Toss all alignment based feats, spells, etc, or remodel them, and use the d20 modern allegiance system. To me, having your top 3 priorties in life listed seems more important then stating if your lawful stupid or chaotic moronic.

First off, what I meant is that I don't think Chaotic characters defy authority for the sake of defying authority; that's just suicidal. Rather they simply value their own freedom above legitimate authority. I also like to emphasize the legitimate part since I don't think Lawful characters have to bow down to authority they think is wrong. As for the rest of your post, I more or less agree. I especially don't like spells like "Detect Evil". How can a spell know whether someone is evil? Evil has to do with your choices, it isn't something you are. I simply presented this system as a possible variant of the alignment system, used as a tool for roleplaying, but I agree that effects that rely on alignment need to be chopped into tiny pieces and burned.

Somehow missed a post:

Lawful
Predictable in which that they have a certain way of doing things, that does not infringe on the law. Follows the spirit of agreements, not the actual legal wording.
Neutral
Will obviously like his neighbors following the law, but sometimes will exploit loopholes in agreements and... yeah.
Chaotic
Believes in free expression. NOT an average guy. Usually believes in a form of law where everyone has their voice heard.

That makes more sense, but it doesn't seem to be what other people are arguing.

[pyrefiend]

See, you aren't giving any tangible differences between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good. Or at the very least I'm not understanding them.

I was just responding to Hammerthief's analysis, that wasn't meant to be a concrete definition of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Anyway, what's wrong with the definition I gave before?

[Drolyt]

I was just responding to Hammerthief's analysis, that wasn't meant to be a concrete definition of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good.

Anyway, what's wrong with the definition I gave before?

Because Lawful characters don't follow authority if they don't believe it is legitimate, and Chaotic characters are fine with following authority when it suits them. True anarchists are insane, as are those who insist on following the law no matter how corrupt.

[Harperfan7]

So, Drolyt, you're saying that the LG would help the CGs work against the LN to help bring in a system thats CG?

I see what you are saying, and I agree that LG and CG would team up against a LE, but theres more shades of grey to deal with, and thats why you need NG.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I especially don't like spells like "Detect Evil". How can a spell know whether someone is evil?

one word: MAGIC

[Drolyt]

So, Drolyt, you're saying that the LG would help the CGs work against the LN to help bring in a system thats CG?

I see what you are saying, and I agree that LG and CG would team up against a LE, but theres more shades of grey to deal with, and thats why you need NG.

I would assume that a LG character would prefer a CG system to a Non-Good system of any flavor, even LN. As for the shades of grey, I guess I'm not sure. I think my system is simpler and the alignments are easier to define, but I'm not set in stone about it, it was just an idea. My problem is how to make the system more concrete and sensible, since it is currently neither. Edit: I mean the current D&D system, not the system in the first post (although that probably qualifies too).

[Harperfan7]

I would assume that a LG character would prefer a CG system to a Non-Good system of any flavor, even LN. As for the shades of grey, I guess I'm not sure. I think my system is simpler and the alignments are easier to define, but I'm not set in stone about it, it was just an idea. My problem is how to make the system more concrete and sensible, since it is currently neither.

Well, good luck.

[sscheib]

This is how I've viewed it (in terms of comic book characters, for reference).

Lawful Good: Superman. Superman never breaks the law, no matter what.
Neutral Good: Captain America. He respects law and abides by it, but when it crosses a boundary, he will fight back.
Chaotic Good: The Punisher. The Punisher actively breaks the law by murdering criminals. In fact, the Punisher is actually enemies with heroes like Daredevil because he breaks the law in such a big way.

A lawful good character is bound to the law unconditionally.
A neutral good character will follow the law so long as it doesn't go against what he believes to be right.
A chaotic good character actively works against the law. They have no respect for law, but they still do good things.

The Punisher is a good person at heart, he just kills a whole bunch of people.
Superman is a good person, but he just won't break the law.

That being said, I'd say there are relatively few Lawful/Chaotic Good characters. A majority of characters would realistically be Neutral Good because it's the gray area.

[Drolyt]

This is how I've viewed it (in terms of comic book characters, for reference).

Lawful Good: Superman. Superman never breaks the law, no matter what.
Neutral Good: Captain America. He respects law and abides by it, but when it crosses a boundary, he will fight back.
Chaotic Good: The Punisher. The Punisher actively breaks the law by murdering criminals. In fact, the Punisher is actually enemies with heroes like Daredevil because he breaks the law in such a big way.

A lawful good character is bound to the law unconditionally.
A neutral good character will follow the law so long as it doesn't go against what he believes to be right.
A chaotic good character actively works against the law. They have no respect for law, but they still do good things.

The Punisher is a good person at heart, he just kills a whole bunch of people.
Superman is a good person, but he just won't break the law.

That being said, I'd say there are relatively few Lawful/Chaotic Good characters. A majority of characters would realistically be Neutral Good because it's the gray area.

I'm not certain I'd call The Punisher good, but I'm not a comics expert. If your explanations of the alignments are correct then no sane person should be Lawful or Chaotic. Honestly at this point I'm convinced it makes more sense to just drop the alignment system.

[pyrefiend]

I'm not certain I'd call The Punisher good, but I'm not a comics expert. If your explanations of the alignments are correct then no sane person should be Lawful or Chaotic. Honestly at this point I'm convinced it makes more sense to just drop the alignment system.

Eventually, all of these debates lead to this same conclusion.

[Drolyt]

Eventually, all of these debates lead to this same conclusion.

In my experience though a lot of people complain if you do away with alignment. What should a DM/GM do then? What about published settings?

[NemoUtopia]

True anarchists may or may not be insane. As might those who espouse terrorism and other evils including anything from genocide to unfair legal systems. The problem with this is that, in true representation of humanity, everyone views the 3.0/3.5 alignment system in at least slightly different ways. I challenge those who say that the system goes too far into saying that the system does not go far enough. Much like a survey system, it would be better as at least a 7 point (I think 9 is about right) system on each axis:
Zealously L - Strongly L - Moderately L - N - Moderately C - Strongly C - Zealously C
Do the same for good and evil. The simple truth is that most people fall in the 'moderately - moderately' cross, but does not disallow strong alignments. It also means alignment change over time is much easier than trying to decide when a lifelong Cleric of Heironeous changes from LE and migrates up towards CG as a reaction to his old lifestyle. It's much easier to determine with the sliding rating. For the purposes of the system, this creates a 9x9 grid with 81 squares: each DnD 3.0/3.5 alignment corresponds to a cluster of 9 dots on the grid (specifically, a 3x3 square). This means that there ARE sentients considered lawful/evil/whatever without going bonkers into 'you're only lawful evil if both extremely zealous about the law AND being evil', which would only represent the farthest SW corner of the 81 dot grid. In fact, this degree of axis definition provides an excellent compass for a character's choice and roleplaying: whether they value law and good equally, for instance, or whether they are more inclined to break an unfair law just this once or uphold it and then try to legally change said law.

Trying to make the system simpler like you suggest only makes things more complicated. I'll swear by the 9x9 grid, as it has served me very well.

[Agi Hammerthief]

In my experience though a lot of people complain if you do away with alignment. What should a DM/GM do then?

find players that don't complain?

use completely different alignment scale:

Altruistic / Egoistic
&
Cooperative / unCooperative


I'm agreeing with NemoUtopia that making the grid coarser than 3.x is a step in the wrong direction.

[Drolyt]

True anarchists may or may not be insane. As might those who espouse terrorism and other evils including anything from genocide to unfair legal systems. The problem with this is that, in true representation of humanity, everyone views the 3.0/3.5 alignment system in at least slightly different ways. I challenge those who say that the system goes too far into saying that the system does not go far enough. Much like a survey system, it would be better as at least a 7 point (I think 9 is about right) system on each axis:
Zealously L - Strongly L - Moderately L - N - Moderately C - Strongly C - Zealously C
Do the same for good and evil. The simple truth is that most people fall in the 'moderately - moderately' cross, but does not disallow strong alignments. It also means alignment change over time is much easier than trying to decide when a lifelong Cleric of Heironeous changes from LE and migrates up towards CG as a reaction to his old lifestyle. It's much easier to determine with the sliding rating. For the purposes of the system, this creates a 9x9 grid with 81 squares: each DnD 3.0/3.5 alignment corresponds to a cluster of 9 dots on the grid (specifically, a 3x3 square). This means that there ARE sentients considered lawful/evil/whatever without going bonkers into 'you're only lawful evil if both extremely zealous about the law AND being evil', which would only represent the farthest SW corner of the 81 dot grid. In fact, this degree of axis definition provides an excellent compass for a character's choice and roleplaying: whether they value law and good equally, for instance, or whether they are more inclined to break an unfair law just this once or uphold it and then try to legally change said law.

Trying to make the system simpler like you suggest only makes things more complicated. I'll swear by the 9x9 grid, as it has served me very well.

This makes more sense. I guess from now on I'll stick to either no alignment, or something like what you suggest. Or maybe this:

find players that don't complain?

use completely different alignment scale:

Altruistic / Egoistic
&
Cooperative / unCooperative


I'm agreeing with NemoUtopia that making the grid coarser than 3.x is a step in the wrong direction.

Using completely different alignment scales, particularly ones that are less subjective, would work well but would be very campaign specific.

[Jane_Smith]

Trued20 uses Conviction instead of alignment - you pick a vice and a virtue; like greedy and compasionate or something. They actually give statistical benefits for -roleplaying- these (conviction points).