PDA

View Full Version : Simple alignment fix, the one to end them all (seriously its getting annoying)



inuyasha
2013-03-15, 09:58 PM
In the beginning, there was darkness and chaos. Nothing existed except for the forces of chaos, the destroyer, the nothing, and law, the creator. In this darkness, law created the world. Chaos did not like this however, and tried to destroy this empty husk in the vastness of his domain. To combat this, law created man and life, to populate the world. But again, chaos fought back, so he had created magic to destroy the humans. Well unknown to it, law had stolen his magic, and used it to create its own type of magic. So the war rages on, between the destructive forces of chaos, and the rigid, crystal powers of law.

This, created alignments, which I will explain below. Using my system, alignment has no effect on your behavior, you could be in the standard system, chaotic evil, but in this, you are chaos. Get it? If not...keep reading

{table] Chaos| Neutral| Law [/table]

Yep...three alignments, the descriptions are below

Chaos
You want the world to be bent and plunged into chaos, you can still fight for the forces of good, you just dont think this world should keep existing any more. You delight in destruction, disorder, and randomness. But as stated before, you can still be good, just...weird good

Law
You fight to keep this world alive. You wake up and say "hey, I dont want the world destroyed...thats where I keep all my stuff" and if your character is like this, then you are lawful. You are orderly and organised, and you tend to think rationally, but if you see anything defiling your precious world, ye SMITE it. You can still be evil oriented if your lawful, you are a tyrant. But again, your behavior is up to you, not your alignment.

Neutral
you dont care, you have more important things to do than worry about the world, or destroying the world. You have bad guys to catch, dishes to wash, dwarves to feed, or whatever. This is neutral, you just dont worry about the world around you.

Examples of alignments
Chaotic
Joker
two face
most other batman villains

Lawful
Spiderman
most stereotypical paladins
the president of the united states of america

Neutral
Me
honestly...batman
most teenage girls who are texting...
(insert media reference here)


So...thoughts?

Amechra
2013-03-15, 10:17 PM
But... but...

Where's the "Adventurer" Alignment?

Zelkon
2013-03-15, 10:18 PM
But... but...

Where's the "Adventurer" Alignment?

If that made sense out of context, I'd sig it. Have a cookie.

Hyde
2013-03-15, 10:22 PM
Probably okay in a game where the destruction or lack thereof of the world is thematically central.

It doesn't really help anything, though. Do Paladins merely "smite Chaos"? There's nothing really inherently world-destroying about undead, evil outsiders and dragon, so most of their classic foes are going to be all "whatever, dood."

So... no, you don't really have anything here.

inuyasha
2013-03-15, 10:28 PM
nothing "world destroying" about them? do you read monster entries. Those things you mentioned, live to corrupt, kill, destroy, and cause panic, and given enough quantity im SURE they could destroy the world :smallconfused:

Gnorman
2013-03-15, 10:39 PM
This is identical to OD&D alignment.

You've been ninja'd by about forty years.

inuyasha
2013-03-15, 10:41 PM
:p but at least it works, and hey, I didnt need to try 50 times to get a single freakin alignment fix :p

Gnorman
2013-03-15, 10:45 PM
:p but at least it works, and hey, I didnt need to try 50 times to get a single freakin alignment fix :p

I don't agree. This system reduces all chaotic characters to moustache-twirling caricatures. Why would a "good" character want to destroy the world?

Hyde
2013-03-15, 10:50 PM
It's not a matter of ability, it's desire. Demons and Devils have perfectly logical not-world-destroying motivations for the death they cause.

It's fine if you want to make them mere agents of chaos in your own world, but it's hardly a fix for... anyone else. Asmodeus pretty much loves existing and wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that continuing to happen going forward. Orchus, Demon Prince Defined, has gone to absurd lengths to keep on keeping on.

The destruction of things that exist has some serious multi-planar implications in a universe like the one in DnD.

So no, again.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-15, 11:13 PM
I don't agree. This system reduces all chaotic characters to moustache-twirling caricatures. Why would a "good" character want to destroy the world?

I have to agree with this. Even assuming the worst of chaotic psychopaths, that sort of randomized violence doesn't mean they want to see the world destroyed. They might even delusionally think they're SAVING the world.

D&D suffers a bit from pigeon-holes alignments. This actually makes that WORSE.

bobthe6th
2013-03-15, 11:46 PM
yeah... the fact that most of the examples are comic book characters should be a sign. Like really, joker? two face? villains thats motivation in general was EVIL for EVIL's sake? This leads to the two dimensional characters D&D is known for, and it is not a good reputation.

Honestly, just rip out the alinements wholesale, and make all alinement dependent things either religion related(For divine based stuff like paladins and divine casters) and... I can't think of another time alinement matters. Like, you can smite those that are opposed by your god, and holy smite effects those considered neutral to your god as neutral and opposed as evil.

Then just have actual character building, like "pick 5 words that describe your character." or the ten minute background.

Cast off the chains of pointless alinement, rise up to the idea of actual role playing.

Xeratos
2013-03-15, 11:59 PM
Honestly, I think you'd have been better off going good-neutral-evil as an alignment, and dropping the chaotic/lawful axis. Come to think of it, didn't 4th edition do that, just with lawful good tacked on as some sort of "super good" past regular and chaotic evil being the same on the other end?

My personal philosphy: lawful and chaotic are more like personality traits than alignments. A lawful person might hold to traditions, be very analytical, and think strategically in combat, where his chaotic counterpart is very open to new experiences, enjoys more abstract hobbies like the arts, and prefers to charge in* and wing it rather than hash out complex stategies. I don't believe that in a morel dilemma situation, there should really be any serious disagreement between a LG, NG, and CG person on what the right thing to do is, just the mechanics of how to do it.


*funny side story: I once DMed a group that included a pally and a barbarian. the pally says "go left, I'll go right, and we'll flank him." the barbarian responds: "Flank? Is that like charge?"

Waker
2013-03-16, 12:06 AM
The alignment system I use is pretty simple. It's the same Law/Chaos//Good/Evil one that D&D normally uses, but with one caveat. It doesn't apply to anything except creatures with an alignment subtype. Mortals simply don't represent the essence of Evil, regardless of how evil they are. This means that certain abilities are less effective (Holy Word) while others are broadened (Smite Evil is just Smite now.)

Kish
2013-03-16, 09:30 AM
I am boggled that you apparently think a return to the old Law=Good Chaos=Evil system, with a note that says, "But you can be good and want the world to end!" is a fix or will reduce confusion.


Come to think of it, didn't 4th edition do that, just with lawful good tacked on as some sort of "super good" past regular and chaotic evil being the same on the other end?
No, although their choice of terms makes it inevitable that people will think that way.

In 4ed, Lawful Good isn't "More Good" than Good. Rather, if you're Good, by default, you're assumed to highly value freedom. Lawful Good is "Good, but values stability over freedom."

If you're Evil, by default, you're assumed to be a control freak. Chaotic Evil is, "Evil, but values destruction over personal power."

Zelkon
2013-03-16, 10:05 AM
Alignment is a ridiculous concept. The best fix is to get rid of it altogether.

Network
2013-03-16, 11:10 AM
As mentioned above, Chaos =/= Evil, and Law =/= Good. This will bring more confusion than the standard system.

I admit, though, that the alignment system can be improved. The allegiance system has some side-effect, but is still one of the best substitutes out there. And for the Law versus Chaos thing, I agree that they are more personal philosophies. Unless you want your campaign to be about a war between giant frogs and robots, or about the Far Realm for that matter, they shouldn't be major dilemma.

Corwin Icewolf
2013-03-16, 06:08 PM
Terrible. First, why would being chaotic automatically make you want to blow up the universe? Why would being lawful make you want to preserve it? Color wheel is a much better fix than this, honestly. You also haven't changed much of anything. You basically have the same nine alignments. Just a silly and pigeonholed way of looking at order and discord.

inuyasha
2013-03-16, 06:32 PM
well thanks for all the responses :smallfrown: im just sick and tired of all the alignment and fighter fixes lately

TuggyNE
2013-03-16, 07:48 PM
im just sick and tired of all the alignment and fighter fixes lately

You and me both. :smallsigh:

Devils_Advocate
2013-03-22, 06:12 AM
Without modification, this only really fits a setting in which the destruction of the world is an obvious significant threat. The vast majority of characters don't fit any of these because there's no obvious threat to their world's existence to fight. So while they would prefer that the world not be destroyed they also tend not to worry about it all that much.

Furthermore, change and unpredictability are constants in any living world. A totally predictable world is either inert or robotic. Life is messy. Chaos and order are both necessary for life and eliminating either would entail eliminating life. Also, someone who wants to preserve the world could be capricious and insane and someone who wants to destroy the world could be systematic and rational. Destroying the world would require a lot of discipline in any normal setting, since the natural tendency of the world is to go on existing. Worlds tend to have a lot of ontological inertia.

Except... Well. It depends on what you mean by "preserve" or "destroy", really. See, in our own universe, as a rule, stuff doesn't wink into or out of existence. You know, the whole conservation of mass and energy thing. Stuff only gets rearranged. Sometimes, when stuff gets rearranged a lot, we say that "the things" that the stuff was arranged into were "destroyed" and that "the other things" that the stuff gets arranged into are "created". But the standards involved and the whole concept of identity, really, are actually pretty vague.

So! Maybe Chaotic characters prioritize improvement -- and thus want "old things" to be "destroyed" so that "new things" may be "created"; Lawful characters prioritize maintaining things of value -- and thus wish to preserve traditions, institutions, etc; and Neutral characters want some things be stay the same and other things to change -- making them the sane ones. ("There are two kinds of fools: One says 'This is old, and therefore good', while the other says 'This is new, and therefore better'.")

In that sense, Batman could perhaps be said to "not care whether the world is destroyed". Though, even given this rather unconventional interpretation of the phrase, I doubt that most people not under the influence of potent narcotics would peg most of his villains as "wanting the world to be destroyed".

le Suisse
2013-03-22, 07:02 AM
I don't think that Chaos is nihilistic. Chaotic people and monster doesn't want destruction and doom to the world (at the very least it should be lawful, since a lifeless universe will be free of free will, and so of Chaos).

My point is that Chaos is about being selfish, hedonistic, carefree and most of all, individualistic. Chaos is for people who center their worldview on themselves and their friends, doesn't care about communities or societies, and more-or-less do want they want when they want and to hell if others disagree.

It's the alignment of the thieves, who don't care about propriety, and of the anarchists, who can't see a leader in picture.

On the other hand a chaotic character may want to end the world or to destroy things, but it's always because it fulfill their objective in some way ( for example, a cheap laugh).

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-22, 09:33 AM
Why can't it just be: some people follow the rules (Law), some people don't (Chaos), and some people follow some of the rules some of the time (Neutral)? Why does alignment need to be more complicated than that, assuming you use it all?

Personally, I think everyone is neutral.

Kish
2013-03-22, 10:13 AM
Why can't it just be: some people follow the rules (Law), some people don't (Chaos), and some people follow some of the rules some of the time (Neutral)? Why does alignment need to be more complicated than that, assuming you use it all?

Personally, I think everyone is neutral.
Your second paragraph answers your first one. It needs to be more complicated that "it's whether you always or never follow the rules" because "it's whether you always or never follow the rules" leads to "everyone is Neutral."

zlefin
2013-03-22, 10:37 AM
I find the problem with alignment fixes is that all the truly good alignment fixes require too much real world comparison to comply with forum guidelines.

Recaiden
2013-03-22, 10:45 AM
This alignment system fits with the cosmology described at the start. I find it odd that Law is the creative force, and not Chaos, but for that cosmology, it's fine. It just doesn't seem applicable to anyone else.

Alignment fixes that leave the system in, yeah, tiring.

Yitzi
2013-03-22, 11:57 AM
So someone who breaks every law and ethical principle out there, but enjoys doing that enough that they'll try to stop the complete destruction of the world (but they'd love for it to just descend to anarchy but stay existing) is aligned with Law?

And someone who wants everybody to follow strict rules, and since they don't and apparently never will, decides that it's better for the world to simply end rather than continue with such disorder...such a person is aligned with Chaos?

le Suisse
2013-03-22, 04:54 PM
the fundemental problem with DnD alignments is, I have always said, that it's more of natural forces that points of view or guidelines for roleplay. There's Good, there's Evil, and there's proof of what is what (and you can even use it as fuel).
In the real world,things are not as simple. We thinks that what the society teach us is right is right,but what do we know about others? Is this realy an issue we want to resume with two words on a character sheet? After all, with their habit of killing without remorse, stealing everything that's not nailed and only caring for themselves and the people who will give them rewards, most of the PC are not exactly what you could honestly call sane people (and are at worse dangerous sociopath).

AuraTwilight
2013-03-22, 11:12 PM
If anything, to fix Alignment, you need to make it more complex so it can accurately describe more types of people.

I feel the best way to do this, that I've seen proposed before, is to add the Funky/Square axis.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828

Anyone who disagrees is clearly a Square.

scarmiglionne4
2013-03-23, 09:05 AM
Your second paragraph answers your first one. It needs to be more complicated that "it's whether you always or never follow the rules" because "it's whether you always or never follow the rules" leads to "everyone is Neutral."

Even if I used the standard alignments all of my players end up playing True or Chaotic Neutral anyway. No one is ever good and I don't allow evil PCs and seldom have evil NPCs.

Kish
2013-03-23, 09:47 AM
Even if I used the standard alignments all of my players end up playing True or Chaotic Neutral anyway. No one is ever good and I don't allow evil PCs and seldom have evil NPCs.
While this may be a misapprehension, the phrasing "No one is ever good and I don't allow evil PCs" gives me the impression that most of your players would rather play evil characters, and spend most game sessions testing the boundaries of what you'll let them define as "neutral."

In any event, however, you've provided another answer to your question: You couldn't disallow evil PCs if there was no such thing as an "evil" classification.

TuggyNE
2013-03-23, 07:19 PM
Anyone who disagrees is clearly a Square.

So, what, Square is the new double-plus-ungood? :smallconfused:

AuraTwilight
2013-03-23, 07:57 PM
No, just unfun.