PDA

View Full Version : Alignment



Kane0
2012-08-30, 09:35 PM
Hey all. I have something I know the great minds of GitP can help me with.

In development of my own game system (here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13788497#post13788497) if your interested) the topic of Alignment was one of the items raised, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas or good brews they could point me to.

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

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

Thanks in advance!

toapat
2012-08-30, 10:03 PM
Well, lets quick Define the Rigid rules for Character Alignment:

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

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

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

the Third axis doesnt really make sense.

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

willpell
2012-08-30, 10:08 PM
The basic idea I have so far is that the current alignment system (Axis of Good/Evil and Axis of Law/Chaos) is supplemented by a secondary alignment axis of Dedication or devotion, to differentiate the Lawful Evil dictator from his only barely lawful evil subjects.

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

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

TopCheese
2012-08-30, 10:12 PM
Make dedication/devotion a way to show PC's they are slipping away from their alignment.

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

The same for good and evil.

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

Or something like that...

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-30, 10:37 PM
Hm. Making a third axis sounds like it just complicates things. This is my preferred alignment system:

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

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

Combos!

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

I personally never bother with Neutrals.

toapat
2012-08-30, 10:48 PM
Hm. Making a third axis sounds like it just complicates things. This is my preferred alignment system:

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

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

Combos!

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

I personally never bother with Neutrals.

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

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

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

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

Yitzi
2012-08-31, 12:05 AM
Hey all. I have something I know the great minds of GitP can help me with.

In development of my own game system (here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13788497#post13788497) if your interested) the topic of Alignment was one of the items raised, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas or good brews they could point me to.

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

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

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

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-08-31, 12:07 AM
Alignment as personality doesnt work, it just leads to expanding spirals of rules to define actions.

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

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

Kane0
2012-08-31, 12:10 AM
I liked the alignment color wheel, it was interesting and fun. A bit too far removed from the traditional alignments though, so I'm unsure about putting it in.

toapat
2012-08-31, 12:45 AM
:smallconfused: That's what Alignment is for in RPGs. The 43 example comes to mind. He doesn't care about good or evil necessarily, but he follows a personal code of conduct. Alignment = Personality. Actions taken are only an outward sign of the internal thought process. A LG Paladin follows the "Rules" because they feel that either rules make people good or good people naturally live by rules. But it's still just how you see the world and how that perception changes how you interact with people.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 01:16 AM
I semi-like the idea of "dedication points". It would need to be done carefully so as not to increase the "lawful stupid" problem, but I'm in favor of attaching greater crunch to the mechanics if it can be implemented skillfully, so that instead of simple "fall/don'tfall" categories of actions, consequences can be somewhat nuanced and adjusted based on circumstances.


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

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

bobthe6th
2012-08-31, 01:52 AM
just going to toss in somthing I saw on the forums...
making both alinments into 5, so exalted good nutral evil demonic, auxomatic lawful nutral chaotic limbo(cant remeber this step).

willpell
2012-08-31, 01:53 AM
AFAIK that was first proposed by Son of Zeal. I have now adopted it as well.

Kholai
2012-08-31, 05:52 AM
Good and Evil is always fairly simple, and has two aspects: Altruism versus Greed, and Scope of Justice (Justice, by the way, contrary to popular belief, is a moral term, not a legalistic one).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few examples.

toapat
2012-08-31, 07:01 AM
*Snip*

Good Evil: you basically hit the nail on the head

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

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

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

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

Then, you have things like Personality Modifiers.

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

Kholai
2012-08-31, 07:29 AM
Good Evil: you basically hit the nail on the head

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

toapat
2012-08-31, 08:10 AM
True, but how much of Honour is related to the concept of Justice, or moral concerns?

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

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

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

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 08:52 AM
Honor in this case is based off of of the Chivalric Code, so it is more based on moral concern. In a way this is just a different lens of Good-Evil as a result.

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

toapat
2012-08-31, 09:04 AM
Disagree here. Cultures with strong senses of Honor have often dictated that Honor demanded an act that we would call Evil, such as executing someone because they insulted you in public - you're obligated to protect your good name as a Knight or Samurai, while the Good thing would be to have humility and not murder someone over a bruised ego. There are even harsher cases inherent in some highly structured society, but I have a fuzzy grasp on the details and don't want to get in trouble for discussing politics so I'll leave it with this very broad example.

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 09:17 AM
Not all medieval European knights were both honorable and chivalrous. A lot were little more than thugs in the employ of their Lord, and they would definitely kill anyone who spoke out of turn about their lord, about them to their lord, in their lord's presence, or if they just felt like it and their lord hadn't ordered them not to.

toapat
2012-08-31, 09:19 AM
Not all medieval European knights were both honorable and chivalrous. A lot were little more than thugs in the employ of their Lord, and they would definitely kill anyone who spoke out of turn about their lord, about them to their lord, in their lord's presence, or if they just felt like it and their lord hadn't ordered them not to.

that isnt following Chivalric Honor though.

Kholai
2012-08-31, 09:23 AM
Disagree here. Cultures with strong senses of Honor have often dictated that Honor demanded an act that we would call Evil, such as executing someone because they insulted you in public - you're obligated to protect your good name as a Knight or Samurai, while the Good thing would be to have humility and not murder someone over a bruised ego. There are even harsher cases inherent in some highly structured society, but I have a fuzzy grasp on the details and don't want to get in trouble for discussing politics so I'll leave it with this very broad example.

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 09:25 AM
that isnt following Chivalric Honor though.

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

toapat
2012-08-31, 10:14 AM
GE axis, not the LC one.

longhand please


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

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 10:32 AM
You said:


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

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

toapat
2012-08-31, 10:43 AM
Honor is not based off of the Chivalric Code.

Read the PHB, it is.

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

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

Nothing is set in stone.

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

willpell
2012-08-31, 11:23 AM
Read the PHB, it is.

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

Ashtagon
2012-08-31, 11:38 AM
Rather than making however many axes or redefining "lawful" and the other existing axes, ask yourself another question.

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

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

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

Yitzi
2012-08-31, 01:15 PM
Read the PHB, it is.

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

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

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

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

nonsi
2012-08-31, 02:20 PM
Alignment^3 (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19554078/Alignment%5E3?post_id=332360470#332360470)

Kane0
2012-08-31, 07:27 PM
Thanks for the suggetion Nonsi, it really explored the concept of commitment that our dedication axis was going for.
I also very much like SonofZeals five point alignments, im tossing up between them right now.

willpell
2012-08-31, 10:23 PM
Alignment^3 (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19554078/Alignment%5E3?post_id=332360470#332360470)

That's me! It's a very old system and I no longer quite stand by it...Arch is still more or less perfict IMO, but I no longer like the names Candid or Conditional for its opposite, nor am I satisfied that Candid and Basic are sufficiently distinct.

My current viewpoint on a possible third axis is more inclined to call the two extremes Nature and Madness, or Pragmatism and something that I don't really have a good name for...we'll go with Flakiness for now. Pragmatism is the belief in accepting the world as it is, harsh realities and all, without even trying to change it, probably assuming that it would cause more harm than good to even try because you don't understand the universe completely, and thus can't know that you aren't screwing it up. Yitzi's scenario is easily solved by the PNF axis; a Pragmatic Good will execute the child without a second thought if millions of lives are credibly threatened by her existence, while the Flaky Good would never even consider deliberately slaying an innocent regardless of the absolute certainty of the consequences, because the principle of Good is more important than mere lives. (Actually the only reason not to call Flaky Principled, or more accurately Principle-Concerned since their principle might be a need to display a lack of principles, is that it starts with the same letter as Pragmatic). Meanwhile, the Neutral character's most likely reaction is to doubt the accuracy of the claim that the child will cause millions of deaths if not executed; he will not accept a need to kill the child unless the evidence is overwhelming that it's true, and will take as long as he dares finding that evidence; killing the child would be a horrible act and he'll avoid it at any sane cost, but if it absolutely comes down to the wire he'll save the other lives and then feel really guilty that he couldn't find another way.

A Pragmatic hero recognizes that Evil can't usually be reasoned with, can't usually be redeemed, and doesn't usually deserve forgiveness; it's most likely to execute probable villains out of hand, as a "scared straight" program, and generally tends to support "the ends justify the means" theory (though it still shouldn't be able to get away with obvious Fridge Logic such as "obviously the peasants of the kingdom will realize how to rule themselves if I kill the King for having been very slightly evilish"). Conversely, a Flaky hero has believed too sincerely in the stories about ultimate Good, and now expects that piety will be rewarded by miracles while even the slightest lapse of virtue will be harshly punished (given that the afterlife is a known fact in D&D land, this is somewhat justified, but the Flake is by definition willing to believe this even with no evidence or logic to support it; accepting such beliefs only if they are proven true is consistent with Neutral on this axis).

On the villain end, Pragmatic villains simply believe that life is cruel and unforgiving, and that you should seize whatever power and pleasure you can. It knows that being an obvious black hat is not good for your health, but also believes in the power of a fearsome reputation (curiously enough, being preoccupied with what others think of you is generally a Principled trait for the Good and the Lawful, while it's usually a Pragmatic trait for the Chaotic and Evil). Flaky villains, on the other hand, are usually either nihilistic or outright insane; they may think everyone is better off dead, they may believe pain is the greatest pleasure and hate is really just love without its makeup on, they may hate themselves and take it out on the world around them, they may simply refuse to accept reality and behave sociopathically because they don't think others are really people, etc. etc. etc. Basically, Pragmatic villains are Nietzchean (sp?) Wannabees, while a Flaky villain is anywhere from For the Evuls to Woobie Bringer of Doom. (I really need to do a thorough TVTropes crawl one of these days, list ALL the relevant tropes and associate them with Alignments or whatnot.)

PaintByBlood
2012-09-01, 08:25 AM
Would it be okay if a Lawful person was played as a pathological liar and made a life of crime stealing from people - so long as they maintain consistent, structured behaviour? A serial killer who preys on children and steals mementos from the dead is engaged in dishonourable behaviour, but they are patterned and organised.
I disagree with the Consistency v. Erratic claim, and this is a pretty good example of why. It says a little about the internal functionings of the character's mind, but I don't think that is the intent of Law v. Chaos.
I think the intent has generally been to have something on the same level of Good v. Evil (that of morality/ethics) that shows the fundamental differences between a Lawful Good paladin and a Chaotic Good rogue, one following their code in pursuit of good, and one pursuing the same by circumventing laws and social acceptability when they need to (or want to).
The main issue I see with Consistency v. Erratic is that they are both picky terms depending on exactly how you are looking. Said rogue is Consistent in their Erratic treatment of the law. Your above examples of serial liar and serial killer seem obviously Chaotic to me - that is, intended to be Chaotic by D&D. They are internally consistent, but do the same circumventing of code and social grace that mark the rogue Chaotic.

To clarify: I think Law v. Chaos is best posed as a question of, for lack of better immediate terms, Conforming v. Free. I'm studying for a Computer Science degree, and a while ago I noticed that one could compare laws to the interfaces we take advantage of in Computer Science. It's fairly simple - an interface is there to allow modularity and easy work on either end of the interface. The person working on the end that supports the interface knows that they need to not change the specific things the person working on the end that utilizes the interface has to use, and that second person knows that those specific things are what they may use. Similarly, in one form of ideal society we would all follow the laws given (and they would be good laws) so that we could all know unerringly what those around us would do. We could look at people and know that they won't steal our things, drive around them knowing they will obey the traffic signals, etc.
I think a Lawful character sees the merit in this predictability and communal conformance, how it can support whatever community's laws he follows, be it a god's orders or a state's regulations. A Chaotic character sees these things as robbing him of his ability to take some action - his ability to be free. He therefore shrugs off rule, code, and honor to do whatever he wants, whether it be consistent evil or erratic good or whatever else.

I hope that was slightly clear, at least.

willpell
2012-09-01, 10:00 AM
Consistency vs. Erratic is certainly not what Lawful vs. Chaotic originally meant, back in 3rd edition when Good and Evil didn't exist. Back then, Chaotic basically meant "lives in a cave and bashes travelers". The characters were assumed to be Lawful because they were civilized humans (and occasional elves/dwarves/hobbits); that was all the ethicality that the game really offered.

le Suisse
2012-09-01, 10:21 AM
The thing you need to think about is : Is the alignement a philosophical and metaphorical thing, a universal label or a physical reality by its own. In DnD, Evil, Good, etc, are physical forces who literaly tell what's nice or not (by example, killing is always evil, no matter why you do that, but the univers can forgive you if you got a good enough reason), and in the Star Wars univers, the Dark Side is the common denomination for all the destructive and chaotic power of the Force (killing, harming, lacking restraint, etc), but at the end is part as much a natural thing as the Light Side. Most of the realistic game take a more phylosophical approach: the alignement is only a "guidline" to describe your character's usual behavior.

EDIT:I think than the Law vs Chao can be summarized by the Community vs the Individual: A lawful good will help the town by saving its citizen, a chaotic good will help the citizen by saving their town.

toapat
2012-09-01, 10:23 AM
*Snip*

This is why i had to point out that the actual definition of Law and Chaos in the original form is Honor vs Dishonor, which itself is just a Tan vs Midnight version of Good and Evil's black and white

This is also why my sugestion is to actually break Alignment down into separate sections both in the rules and on the Charsheet.

Say, we have alignment as Altruistic-Ambitious and Good-Evil, so we can have people like Tarquin who are Altruistic Evil (Tarquin because he works here)

Then we have Methodologies, which has the axises of Law-Chaos (Order vs Anarchy) and Respect vs Derision (honor vs Dishonor without the moral parts). Tarquin Methodologies make him Lawful Derisive (he is orderly, but he doesnt respect any but his close friends or those in the family).

the reason why i had Alignment as just Good - Evil and Methodologies as Law - Chaos, is for shear simplicity, breaking them from each other just clears the problems with complexity that a square causes, but you can still have that square, and you dont have to start shoveling on new spells while doing so

@willpell: that is more Civil vs Uncivil, and is an artifact in 3rd edition with classes like monk and barbarian

PaintByBlood
2012-09-01, 11:45 AM
That sounds pretty good (on its surface at least, I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment), but I think much past the current system gives you simply too much complexity. If you want to get into all that, sure, but D&D tends to already be way past the midpoint on the Simple v. Complex axis.
I think the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil provides a good mix of both considerations. Also, as is, I don't think I'd say Law-Chaos is really just methodology. It is very connected to how you do things because that is one of the few things it has an effect on, but the actual consideration itself is a bit further reaching.
Might just be me, though, and my currently hasty consideration.

Yitzi
2012-09-01, 09:44 PM
or Pragmatism and something that I don't really have a good name for

"Idealism" might work well. Even "ethics" has a certain justification in being used for that (although if you use that axis as separate than Law/Chaos then it does require you to stop calling the Law/Chaos axis "ethical alignment".)

toapat
2012-09-02, 12:19 AM
That sounds pretty good (on its surface at least, I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment), but I think much past the current system gives you simply too much complexity. If you want to get into all that, sure, but D&D tends to already be way past the midpoint on the Simple v. Complex axis.
I think the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil provides a good mix of both considerations. Also, as is, I don't think I'd say Law-Chaos is really just methodology. It is very connected to how you do things because that is one of the few things it has an effect on, but the actual consideration itself is a bit further reaching.
Might just be me, though, and my currently hasty consideration.

the problem with Law-Chaos in 3 ed is that it isnt just Order vs Anarchy, it is primarily Honorable vs Dishonorable (As defined by the Chivalric Codes of Honor), which conflicts with the already existing axis of Good vs Evil. Unless you are in Eberron, in which cast you just pick an alignment and are so

Yitzi
2012-09-02, 01:21 AM
which conflicts with the already existing axis of Good vs Evil.

Depends how you understand Good vs. Evil.

toapat
2012-09-02, 07:00 AM
Depends how you understand Good vs. Evil.

not even remotely. Good vs Evil is, even though at its simplist, Beneficial vs Destructive, still is built using Morals. Chivalric Honor itself carries the same Morals within it.

Yitzi
2012-09-02, 09:27 AM
not even remotely. Good vs Evil is, even though at its simplist, Beneficial vs Destructive, still is built using Morals. Chivalric Honor itself carries the same Morals within it.

Yes, it does carry the same morals within it (which is why Chivalric honor is good-aligned), but also carries a lot of things not included in many interpretations of Good; as such, chivalric honor is LG rather than just G. (And furthermore, those portions of chivalric honor which are not included in Good can be part of other Lawful alignments as well.)

Seharvepernfan
2012-09-02, 09:59 AM
Chaotic Characters favor actions that test the system.

Interesting...could you elaborate please?

Vanvidum
2012-09-02, 10:02 AM
"Idealism" might work well. Even "ethics" has a certain justification in being used for that (although if you use that axis as separate than Law/Chaos then it does require you to stop calling the Law/Chaos axis "ethical alignment".)

An additional axis of Idealism-Cynicism complements the existing ones while encompassing notions of optimism as well as devotion.

An Idealist believes that people or the world itself can be turned toward or is moving to their moral alignment. They're eager to be missionaries of sorts for their code and their morality, as it's not only in their view better for everyone, but fundamentally in harmony with how people or the universe work. It's a belief that their alignment isn't merely applicable to themselves, but rather a universal one from which other alignments incorrectly deviate.

So a typical lawful good paladin that's an idealist is in part motivated by his idealism. He or she might believe people can be reformed and examples must be set for them to follow, and that evil or chaotic opponents are especially dangerous not merely for what they do, but for what they believe and the potential that others might follow them in that belief.

Comparatively, a chaotic evil idealist might believe that all people are inherently evil, with laws and moral codes a matter of social oppression of people's inherent nature that must be removed so people may be free and unfettered. A lot of interpretations of the Joker are like this--He's a chaotic evil missionary, freeing people from the illusions of society!

Cynics on the other hand don't believe in the universality of their moral/ethical alignment. Their own actions and approval of others' is still dependent upon whether they are good/evil or are lawful/chaotic, but they are not motivated to change other people's beliefs. A cynical good character believes in being altruistic, kind, and generally respectful of sentient beings--They will naturally prefer to be with others who believe the same. But if they meet or interact with people inclined to evil, they're not apt to stand in opposition or attempt to redeem them merely for having an opposed alignment. It's not that they don't care, it's that they focus on actions rather than belief or inclination. It's not important to them that others believe the same as they do, just that they don't choose to act to oppose them, their interests, or their alignment. To a cynic, idealists are naive, annoying busy-bodies that ought to gain some perspective and stop caring so much about what people believe or think on their own. After all, what business is it of anyone else?

Cynics, like good characters, can work together harmoniously thanks to them being be sympathetic to the desire to be left alone by tempters, missionaries, or do-gooders alike. Idealists though are apt to clash with each other and with cynics. The former because they both can't be "right", the latter because they're insufficiently devoted to their moral/ethical alignment--or because the cynics resist the imposition of alignment idealism.

Characters that are neutral on the Idealism-Cynicism axis obviously are between the two extremes. They might hold some idealistic positions while otherwise being content to live and let live, or believe in the fundamental universality of their own alignment but reject the missionary impulse.

This third axis adds depth(1) to questions of, "What does one do," "How does one do it," and "Why make those choices?" As a classification system it separates two very different ways of looking at the world, and their vastly divergent approaches to morality and ethics. As a roleplaying tool, it guides players in deciding how to interpret their character's alignment with their personality. A character might follow a strict ethical code and make sacrifices for the good of others, and we can place that in the current alignment chart. With the third axis, we answer why they do it (or how they justify it) as well as whether the character might be motivated to bother debating an alignment issue at all!

Idealism vs cynicism is a major fault line in the real world in terms of politics, morality, religion, and law. Whether one is idealistic or cynical determines the lens through which someone views these issues and personal behaviour. It motivates action or inaction upon one's beliefs or those of others. I'd say all that adds up to an important axis of alignment.

(1) I'm sorry about that. Please feel free to impose a pun-ishment.

toapat
2012-09-02, 10:25 AM
Interesting...could you elaborate please?

Where as a Lawful character is going to in 3/3.5 going to follow the law to the letter, a Chaotic character is going to work against the system, either to break it down, or to better support the common folk, and not just the community.


Yes, it does carry the same morals within it (which is why Chivalric honor is good-aligned), but also carries a lot of things not included in many interpretations of Good; as such, chivalric honor is LG rather than just G. (And furthermore, those portions of chivalric honor which are not included in Good can be part of other Lawful alignments as well.)

While it would make sense if that was the case, that is ENTIRELY NOT how law is defined. Lawful is following the Codes of Chivalry to the letter, despite the fact that that is what Lawful Good is supposed to be.

Seharvepernfan
2012-09-02, 11:21 AM
Where as a Lawful character is going to in 3/3.5 going to follow the law to the letter, a Chaotic character is going to work against the system, either to break it down, or to better support the common folk, and not just the community.


Hmm. I thought you were saying that a chaotic character is basically going to cause trouble because he/she's curious or bored or offended by rules, or is more interested or motivated in/to doing so than he/she is in helping out or furthering him/herself.

Because that's kinda how I am...

Yitzi
2012-09-02, 11:29 AM
While it would make sense if that was the case, that is ENTIRELY NOT how law is defined. Lawful is following the Codes of Chivalry to the letter, despite the fact that that is what Lawful Good is supposed to be.

Really? Perhaps you can quote the place where it says that? Because I certainly see nothing where stuff like "help those less fortunate" (which I'm pretty sure is part of chivalric codes) is included in a lawful alignment.

toapat
2012-09-02, 01:23 PM
Hmm. I thought you were saying that a chaotic character is basically going to cause trouble because he/she's curious or bored or offended by rules, or is more interested or motivated in/to doing so than he/she is in helping out or furthering him/herself.

Because that's kinda how I am...

sounds like CN


Really? Perhaps you can quote the place where it says that? Because I certainly see nothing where stuff like "help those less fortunate" (which I'm pretty sure is part of chivalric codes) is included in a lawful alignment.

"And to Judge those who Fall short of their duties"

let alone the word Honor being the third word in the second paragraph, which in DnD does not mean "Reputation" like it does in Japan. Honor as an Idea is always in reference to the Codes of Chivalry in DnD. According to the Authors of 3.5 edition, the Most important thing for you to be if you are lawful is to be Chivalrous.

Yitzi
2012-09-02, 04:27 PM
"And to Judge those who Fall short of their duties"

Sure, they judge those who fall short of their duties. But those duties need not include the whole code of chivalry (in particular, the stuff about helping others just because they need it).


let alone the word Honor being the third word in the second paragraph, which in DnD does not mean "Reputation" like it does in Japan. Honor as an Idea is always in reference to the Codes of Chivalry in DnD. According to the Authors of 3.5 edition, the Most important thing for you to be if you are lawful is to be Chivalrous.

I think that there "chivalry" is meant to include stuff like obeying authority, always keeping your promises, not hurting innocent people, etc. Not stuff like helping the poor or those who just need it, not demanding what you are rightfully entitled to when it would harm others, etc.

It is possible to be honorable and still be a nasty hard-hearted person through inaction.

toapat
2012-09-02, 05:16 PM
I think that there "chivalry" is meant to include stuff like obeying authority, always keeping your promises, not hurting innocent people, etc. Not stuff like helping the poor or those who just need it, not demanding what you are rightfully entitled to when it would harm others, etc.

It is possible to be honorable and still be a nasty hard-hearted person through inaction.

Stop arguing with the PHB, it is god

The point you are arguing about is the fact that i pointed out how pants on head stupid the handling of Alignment is in 3/.5

Yitzi
2012-09-02, 10:16 PM
Stop arguing with the PHB

I am not arguing with the PHB here, I am arguing with your interpretation of the PHB.

willpell
2012-09-03, 12:17 AM
Stop arguing with the PHB, it is god

If the PHB is god, then how come so many later supplements expand upon, modify, and flat-out contradict it?

Also, here's a quote from another thread that sums up my feelings on the Lawful alignment nicely, and indicates why I think you're alone in feeling that Lawful Evil people are chivalrous:


Honor is a crutch to replace morality for immoral people. That's why it is used as a pretext for justifying gruesome murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) and why it is a word that always come up in the vocabulary of mafiosi and soldiers. "Field of honor", anyone? No real principle here other than "hey, kid, here's a rifle, now go stand there and try to kill as many people as you can before you get killed yourself".

toapat
2012-09-03, 12:28 AM
If the PHB is god, then how come so many later supplements expand upon, modify, and flat-out contradict it?

Also, here's a quote from another thread that sums up my feelings on the Lawful alignment nicely, and indicates why I think you're alone in feeling that Lawful Evil people are chivalrous:

the point is not that the PHB is correct, it is the Cut and Dry exact written definition of Lawful.

On the other hand, the entire alignment system is crap, and works way too hard to define simple things. im trying to get Yitzi and you to STFU because what you are being grammar nazi's about is not actually the relevant point, which is that one of the reasons Law and Chaos dont work, is because they are defined off of something that is built around the axis of Good and Evil already.

willpell
2012-09-03, 12:32 AM
On the other hand, the entire alignment system is crap, and works way too hard to define simple things. im trying to get Yitzi and you to STFU because what you are being grammar nazi's about is not actually the relevant point, which is that one of the reasons Law and Chaos dont work, is because they are defined off of something that is built around the axis of Good and Evil already.

Which is why I'm fixing that. The PHB just didn't do a very good job of explaining Law and Chaos; that doesn't mean they aren't important, it just means you have to look at other sources to figure them out. Which you seem deeply opposed to doing, and then you use your personal preference for not expanding the definitions as proof that they don't matter at all and should be disregarded completely.

toapat
2012-09-03, 08:00 AM
Which is why I'm fixing that. The PHB just didn't do a very good job of explaining Law and Chaos; that doesn't mean they aren't important, it just means you have to look at other sources to figure them out. Which you seem deeply opposed to doing, and then you use your personal preference for not expanding the definitions as proof that they don't matter at all and should be disregarded completely.

The PHB does a very good job, it just does a good job at defining them in ways that make them difficult-near impossible to use in roleplay, and that conflict with the alignment system.

there also is no book for Law/Chaos like there is with the Book of Exaulted Deeds and Vile Darkness for Law and Chaos, the closest thing to such would be the Races of the Wild/Races of Stone because of their focus on races who are typically chaotic and typically lawful, and often good.

Yitzi
2012-09-03, 11:57 AM
On the other hand, the entire alignment system is crap, and works way too hard to define simple things.

Definitions, especially of simple things, are far harder than one might think. If anything, the PHB's alignment system is too careless when it comes to definitions.


is because they are defined off of something that is built around the axis of Good and Evil already.

No, they are defined on something that you think is built around the axis of Good and Evil already.

The problem goes away if we simply reject your understanding of the difference between Good and Evil.

toapat
2012-09-03, 03:53 PM
your understanding of the difference between Good and Evil.

It isnt Good and Evil if you throw that out

AND i dont believe in Law and Chaos being Honor vs Dishonor, it is how well someone defines and follows a code. The way the PHB Retardedly defines Alignment, IS NOT a flexible question. Rich pretty well lampshaded the fact that DnD was not written with a Thesaurus or Dictionary within easy reach. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

Yitzi
2012-09-03, 04:31 PM
It isnt Good and Evil if you throw that out

So you say. The double-axis alignment system in D&D was (as I understand it) at least originally designed specifically to deny that position.

AND i dont believe in Law and Chaos being Honor vs Dishonor, it is how well someone defines and follows a code. The way the PHB Retardedly defines Alignment, IS NOT a flexible question.


Rich pretty well lampshaded the fact that DnD was not written with a Thesaurus or Dictionary within easy reach. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

No, actually that's just having fun with the two important meanings of "level" in D&D; when people aren't trying to be humorous there isn't really much confusion there.

toapat
2012-09-03, 04:47 PM
No, actually that's just having fun with the two important meanings of "level" in D&D; when people aren't trying to be humorous there isn't really much confusion there.

Seven Meanings + A bonus typical expression. Dungeon, Class, character, Spell, caster, manifester, Initiator, and To Flatten. Yes, it makes sense because they are using the word correctly the entire time, it just happens to be that it is one word with at least 8 easily used meanings easily confused via inflection.

And no, Honor as Honor would be arguable, if Respect wasnt used in the same sentence.

and I define Good vs Evil as Beneficial vs Harmful actions, where you draw the lines is entirely upto you. (I mark it as Say, ritually casting Create Food and Water using yourself as the Spell and caster level for Most Extreme good, Steeling from a wealthy merchant's shop to feed yourself for neutral, and Casting Locate City Bomb because you felt like it for evil.)

rudy
2012-09-03, 06:23 PM
just going to toss in somthing I saw on the forums...
making both alinments into 5, so exalted good nutral evil demonic, auxomatic lawful nutral chaotic limbo(cant remeber this step).
"demonic" is a bad word to use there, since demonic implies Chaotic Evil in the 3.5 & Pathfinder mythos. When I made up a similar system years ago (and really, making an extra step of alignment doesn't require any great leap of imagination), I struggled for a while but eventually determined that "Evil" should be the strongest term. So:


Good - Altruistic - Neutral - Selfish - Evil

And, just to be consistent, I put lawful/chaotic on the edges as well:

Lawful - Orderly - Balanced - Mercurial - Chaotic

I threw in "balanced" because it removed the need to specify *which* neutral you were referring to.

Anyway, the general point of my post is choose your terms carefully. Also, you'll need to specify what this changes. For example, I required Paladins to be Good, but only Orderly or better on the law/chaos scale.

Also, don't devalue the word "evil" by placing it in 2nd place. It's a powerful word.

toapat
2012-09-03, 06:38 PM
Also, don't devalue the word "evil" by placing it in 2nd place. It's a powerful word.

good and evil are not the outer steps, its actually if you want to do the 5 stepper like this:

Saintly - Good - Neutral - Evil - Vile

Axiomic - Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic - Anarchic.

rudy
2012-09-03, 07:31 PM
good and evil are not the outer steps, its actually if you want to do the 5 stepper like this:

Saintly - Good - Neutral - Evil - Vile

Axiomic - Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic - Anarchic.

I'm well aware that most people don't put them on the outer steps. My point was, the reason that I do put them on the outersteps, is that the order you use above makes "evil" seem a very hum-drum sort of word, when it's actually a very weighty one. Perhaps this is not true of you, but I reserve the word evil for speaking of the most heinous things.

Yitzi
2012-09-03, 08:42 PM
and I define Good vs Evil as Beneficial vs Harmful actions, where you draw the lines is entirely upto you.

And I'm just pointing out that your objection against Law/Chaos disappears for some of the possible ways to draw the lines.

willpell
2012-09-03, 09:05 PM
It isnt Good and Evil if you throw that out

On the contrary. "That" is your interpretation, which is clearly not the only one. It might be the objective truth in your campaign world, but nowhere else.


I'm well aware that most people don't put them on the outer steps. My point was, the reason that I do put them on the outersteps, is that the order you use above makes "evil" seem a very hum-drum sort of word, when it's actually a very weighty one. Perhaps this is not true of you, but I reserve the word evil for speaking of the most heinous things.

The whole point of Vile is to be more Evil than Evil. I think of Evil as something that everyone (who isn't a Purity Sue) has the potential for inside them, the dark instincts that people are supposed to struggle against, and an Evil person is someone who doesn't refuse those urges. Vile, then, becomes someone who actively goes beyond the degree of Evil that a normal person is capable of.

toapat
2012-09-03, 10:48 PM
And I'm just pointing out that your objection against Law/Chaos disappears for some of the possible ways to draw the lines.

not really, because the objective definitions when you strip out the insanely stupid parts and just boil them down to what they are, Good is actions that benefit, Evil are ones that are self centered and harm. PHB, BoED, BoVD, CD, CC, CotF. doesnt matter which book you choose, that is Good and Evil at their core.

there is no way to draw the lines that Chivalrous or dishonorable do not enter that line.

rudy
2012-09-03, 10:54 PM
The whole point of Vile is to be more Evil than Evil.

What the whole point of the word "vile" is really depends on who you're talking to. If one is a DM designing an alignment system, and you think that evil is a stronger word than vile (which I do, and you do not), then you put evil at the outer layer.

Of course, I might modify it to do something like this:


Saintly - Altruistic - Neutral - Selfish - Vile

Rigid - Orderly - Balanced - Mercurial - Random

So that, for example, "saintly" and "altruistic" become subsets of "Good", and "selfish" and "vile" become subsets of "Evil".

In fact, I think I like that idea a lot, and will now adopt it. Since it only breaks the alignments down into two subcategories each (except neutral), it minimizes the number of alignment relevant rules and spells one needs to tweak.

Only I need a better word than "Random" (not anarchic, because that's a weapon property, and I'm not using "holy", "unholy" and "axiomatic")

willpell
2012-09-04, 01:16 AM
Saintly - Altruistic - Neutral - Selfish - Vile

Rigid - Orderly - Balanced - Mercurial - Random

So that, for example, "saintly" and "altruistic" become subsets of "Good", and "selfish" and "vile" become subsets of "Evil".

This seems reasonable enough, although I would advise that you replace Saintly with the standard Exalted, as the former places too much emphasis on parallels to real-world religion, which don't necessarily make sense. An Exalted character might be a slutty Nymph-Kissed Wonderworker Cleric of Lastai who converts Neutral people to the cause of Chaotic Good by screwing their brains out - would you want to call her Saintly?


Only I need a better word than "Random" (not anarchic, because that's a weapon property, and I'm not using "holy", "unholy" and "axiomatic")

Unstable? Lunatic? Delerious?

rudy
2012-09-04, 08:40 AM
although I would advise that you replace Saintly with the standard Exalted, as the former places too much emphasis on parallels to real-world religion, which don't necessarily make sense.
A good point. Saintly is bad. I've always greatly disliked exalted, though, because the actual *definition* just means raised in rank or standing above others. A noble person, or an evil dictator, could easily be exalted above others. Nothing in the actual meaning of the word has to do with being good.



Unstable? Lunatic? Delerious?
Hm... maybe. It needs to be a word that would be fine to apply to, for example, demons. None of these "click" for me at the moment. Unstable is better than random, though.

willpell
2012-09-04, 09:16 AM
A good point. Saintly is bad. I've always greatly disliked exalted, though, because the actual *definition* just means raised in rank or standing above others. A noble person, or an evil dictator, could easily be exalted above others. Nothing in the actual meaning of the word has to do with being good.

I see what you're saying, but don't forget that forces of Good are often thought of as being "on high", while fiends and such come from the "lower" planes. It may not entirely make sense, but people inherently tend to think of bad things being below and of looking up at things they revere (it might have something to do with the blood pooling in the back of your brain and making you giddy when you stare up for too long). Exaltation is not really a word you associate with the likes of, say, Darth Vader, even though he's #2 in the entire Empire. It may not be entirely precise, but I think it's good enough.


Hm... maybe. It needs to be a word that would be fine to apply to, for example, demons. None of these "click" for me at the moment. Unstable is better than random, though.

Demons and Eladrins alike, so it needs to be morally-neutral sounding (which is hard because we tend to automatically frown on things that suggest a lack of self-control, finding them "icky" at best). "Mercurial" is pretty nearly the best; beyond that it might be "Elemental", but obviously that's in use. The "official" word in my version is Delerious, specifically as a reference to Delerium of the Endless, who was once Delight until she changed in a way that seems not to have been for the better. So she's kind of got that inherent duality going that I think fits well for the way Chaos is almost never viewed as neither good nor bad, though potentially as some of both.

Midwoka
2012-09-04, 09:21 AM
I'd replace Selfish with Callous (preventing that axis from having two parts with the same initial; I like Saintly, myself), and Random with Impulsive (though I might switch Mercurial to the more extreme of the two, in that case).

I also note that a Balanced and Saintly character would have a "BS" alignment =D

rudy
2012-09-04, 09:32 AM
Alright, you've sold me on Exalted (if only because of established use in d20), but not delerious, because it has a strong negative connotation.

I'm also considering ephemeral, capricious, mutable, volatile.

Could also put "mercurial" in the outer spot, and put something like flexible/fluid in its spot.

rudy
2012-09-04, 09:33 AM
Impulsive (though I might switch Mercurial to the more extreme of the two, in that case).

I don't like impulsive, only because the negative connotation. I do think you're right, now, about putting mercurial on the outside, though.

rudy
2012-09-04, 09:38 AM
Okay, my system is (for now)

Exalted - Altruistic - Neutral - Selfish - Vile

Rigid - Ordered - Balanced - Flexible - Mercurial

Still not 100% sure on flexible or exalted.

willpell
2012-09-04, 10:33 AM
I like Flexible just fine, but you could switch Mercurial back and have the extreme be Volatile, which suggests "extremely powerful and dangerous" in a way that probably fits even the Eladrins, though not as much so as the Slaad or demons.

IMO, Impulsive isn't negative, but "Spontaneous" is a more neutral version (though as already observed we have too many "S" words as-is).

Shurz
2012-09-05, 08:53 AM
I have found that the Good-Evil and Lawful-Chaotic descriptions are too loaded,
having too much baggage from IRL beliefs, culture, laws and traditions.
After all it is all in the eye of the Beholder.
With the following table one can describe a human following Pelor,
a Lloth devoted Drow or a Barbarian half-orc following Kord.
I took the liberty of borrowing some descriptive words that made more sense
than the ones I had before ;-).

idealistic - cynical

disciplined - emotional

Furthermore I have noticed that Players feel less constricted and limited
than by Good-Evil + Lawful-Chaotic. They tend also to be less inclined to
go on a rampage just because they play a "non-good character". I also got
better background stories, as they need to think a bit more ;-)

In addition all societies no matter how advanced are influenced by the
cultural environment and the laws which tend to have roots in religion.
When I look at the story of Drizzt Do'Urden the following table made sense.

tradition vs evolution

law & religion vs total personal freedom

Obviously the prerequisite for this to work, is that players have been
given access to descriptions of religions and cultures in whatever setting
one GMs in.

nonsi
2012-09-07, 02:56 AM
idealistic - cynical

disciplined - emotional


I find these axes definitely noteworthy, but I think they should come in addition, not instead of the traditional ones.

One can be an idealistic sadist or a cynical philanthropist (and vice verse).
The same applies to the Disciplined - Emotional axis regarding the above two.
The same applies to the Lawful - Chaotic axis regarding the above three.

This would definitely enrich a PC's personality description.

I would also break each axis into 5 steps (e.g. Exalted & Vile being the extremes of the good-evil axis).
Now instead of 9 basic alignments, you have 625.