Mauril Everleaf
2006-11-17, 12:42 PM
heres my proposal for a revamped alignment system. it still uses the same alignment titles (good, evil, law, chaos, neutral) but kinda affects the way that they can be treated.
*WARNING! THIS IS VERY LONG*
Alignment
In as much as I think that the alignment system that is the mainstay of Dungeons and Dragons, I do feel that the strict system of dualist alignment is fundamentally flawed. Not so much in the dualism (or rather triplism) that bothers me, so much as the strictness of this code of ethics, which is why I propose a looser system of determining a character’s moral code. In order to create simplicity, I will refer to the good vs. evil aspect of alignment as “ethos”, and the law vs. chaos aspect of alignment as “logos”. Under the current alignment system, you pick both an ethos and a logos, both of which determine (or are supposed to determine) the player character’s actions. For example, a character whose alignment is listed as Chaotic Good, should oppose rules and tend to shy away from leadership and should do whatever is necessary to oppose the machinations of evil and to serve the greater good. This sounds great, but this is very restrictive, because the character must exemplify both of these characteristics and should make all decisions based on this set alignment, and any variance from there could result in a shift in alignment. While this shift is not that bad for many characters, it can be very dire for others. Paladins and rangers lose all their powers if they drop out of their specified alignment restrictions, and clerics may lose their divine abilities if their stray too far from the alignment restrictions of their deities. While I agree that alignment restrictions are important and vital to making sure that the party paladin isn’t slaughtering helpless villagers without consequences.
This is why I propose a new way to deal with alignment, one in which the consequences can be just as dire, but are a bit harder to be subject to, giving the player more freedom to roleplay a character. Under my new system, the player essentially picks one alignment, either an ethos or a logos, that is the main determinant as to how a player chooses to react to a situation. This is what will be known as the Major Alignment. The player then chooses a secondary alignment, either a logos or ethos, to be known as the Minor Alignment. Obviously, a character cannot pick a major and minor alignment of the same ilk (logically a character cannot be a Chaotic Lawful, or Good Evil).
In order to continue, one must first make sure that the alignment options are understood, in as far as they will be discussed for the purposes of this discussion. The ethos of Good is diametrically opposed to the ethos of Evil. Good generally embodies self-sacrifice and putting the needs of others before the needs of self, while Evil usually is characterized by self-serving actions and motives, including the destruction of the lives of others. As with traditional alignments, there is also Neutrality which either strives to maintain the balance of Good and Evil or doesn’t bother itself with matters of ethos. Similarly, the logos of Law is the polar opposite of the logos of Chaos. Lawful characters strive to create order, like society, tend to follow rules and authority lines. Chaotic characters dislike order feeling that it hinders them from being their ethos and tend to buck authority. Again, a character may choose to be Neutral in regards to the dichotomy of Law and Chaos.
In reference to the difference between Major and Minor alignments, is the same as the difference between compulsions and tendencies. A major alignment trait determines how the character feels that he or she must react in a certain situation and will not unless under extreme circumstances. A minor alignment trait is how the character would prefer to act in a situation, but he or she is in no way required to act in such a manner. An example of this difference could be as follows: a Major Lawful character will do whatever in his power that he can do in order to maintain the rules and order of his society, most likely even willing to give up his life in order to maintain the order, while a Minor Lawful minds the authorities, keeps the rules and tends to fit in well with society, but this does not mean that he is willing to make great sacrifices in order to keep Law supreme. In short, Major alignments see their alignment as the way of life, while Minor alignment characters just see that as the way that one should live their life but they aren’t dogmatic about it.
When a player should choose the alignment of his character, he should decide what he wants his character’s primary instinct to be in a situation (chaos, evil, good or law) and then he should decide the general leaning of those actions. Again, the character picks either a logos or ethos as his Major and then must pick one of the other category as his Minor. The character must choose at least one Major alignment and no more than one Minor alignment. He may choose, if he would like, to make both his logos and ethos as Major alignments, which would essentially be similar to the old alignment system. A character cannot choose both alignments to be Minor because this would basically allow the character to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, with nearly no consequences.
Now as to how this fleshes itself out in game play. I will use the Lawful Good Paladin as an example because the penalties are fully described and outlined in the rules as written. Under the traditional system, if the paladin knowingly committed an evil act, then he lost his powers or if he knowingly committed a chaotic act, he lost his powers. This makes it virtually impossible for the player of this character class to make any real decisions on his own without jeopardizing those abilities. Under the newly proposed alignment system, the paladin (although he must still remain lawful good) can choose to be Major Lawful and Minor Good or Minor Lawful and Major Good (represented as Lg and lG, respectively). As an Lg paladin, he is firm on his convictions about maintaining order in society, but has a little more freedom in the manner which he maintains order; an lG paladin holds strongly in his belief in the supremacy of goodness, but may feel it necessary to step outside the lines to bring about the greater good. Basically, an Lg paladin feels that it is acceptable, on occasion, to step outside the lines of good in order to uphold the truth of law and an lG paladin feels that it may be necessary to break the rules in order that the good might be upheld.
In order to determine when an alignment shift is necessary or has been precipitated, the DM should look at the severity of the “offense” (that is the action that is characterized by an opposite alignment ethos or logos) as well as whether the offense was committed against the major or minor alignment. This section is obviously ultimately determined by the DM’s perception, but a general rule of thumb would say that one severe offense or a handful of lesser offenses against the Major alignment would cause an alignment shift, while it would take a few severe offenses or a consistent series of lesser offenses to cause a shift in the Minor alignment.
let me know what you think. this is still kind of a work in progress. i want the good, bad and ugly.
*WARNING! THIS IS VERY LONG*
Alignment
In as much as I think that the alignment system that is the mainstay of Dungeons and Dragons, I do feel that the strict system of dualist alignment is fundamentally flawed. Not so much in the dualism (or rather triplism) that bothers me, so much as the strictness of this code of ethics, which is why I propose a looser system of determining a character’s moral code. In order to create simplicity, I will refer to the good vs. evil aspect of alignment as “ethos”, and the law vs. chaos aspect of alignment as “logos”. Under the current alignment system, you pick both an ethos and a logos, both of which determine (or are supposed to determine) the player character’s actions. For example, a character whose alignment is listed as Chaotic Good, should oppose rules and tend to shy away from leadership and should do whatever is necessary to oppose the machinations of evil and to serve the greater good. This sounds great, but this is very restrictive, because the character must exemplify both of these characteristics and should make all decisions based on this set alignment, and any variance from there could result in a shift in alignment. While this shift is not that bad for many characters, it can be very dire for others. Paladins and rangers lose all their powers if they drop out of their specified alignment restrictions, and clerics may lose their divine abilities if their stray too far from the alignment restrictions of their deities. While I agree that alignment restrictions are important and vital to making sure that the party paladin isn’t slaughtering helpless villagers without consequences.
This is why I propose a new way to deal with alignment, one in which the consequences can be just as dire, but are a bit harder to be subject to, giving the player more freedom to roleplay a character. Under my new system, the player essentially picks one alignment, either an ethos or a logos, that is the main determinant as to how a player chooses to react to a situation. This is what will be known as the Major Alignment. The player then chooses a secondary alignment, either a logos or ethos, to be known as the Minor Alignment. Obviously, a character cannot pick a major and minor alignment of the same ilk (logically a character cannot be a Chaotic Lawful, or Good Evil).
In order to continue, one must first make sure that the alignment options are understood, in as far as they will be discussed for the purposes of this discussion. The ethos of Good is diametrically opposed to the ethos of Evil. Good generally embodies self-sacrifice and putting the needs of others before the needs of self, while Evil usually is characterized by self-serving actions and motives, including the destruction of the lives of others. As with traditional alignments, there is also Neutrality which either strives to maintain the balance of Good and Evil or doesn’t bother itself with matters of ethos. Similarly, the logos of Law is the polar opposite of the logos of Chaos. Lawful characters strive to create order, like society, tend to follow rules and authority lines. Chaotic characters dislike order feeling that it hinders them from being their ethos and tend to buck authority. Again, a character may choose to be Neutral in regards to the dichotomy of Law and Chaos.
In reference to the difference between Major and Minor alignments, is the same as the difference between compulsions and tendencies. A major alignment trait determines how the character feels that he or she must react in a certain situation and will not unless under extreme circumstances. A minor alignment trait is how the character would prefer to act in a situation, but he or she is in no way required to act in such a manner. An example of this difference could be as follows: a Major Lawful character will do whatever in his power that he can do in order to maintain the rules and order of his society, most likely even willing to give up his life in order to maintain the order, while a Minor Lawful minds the authorities, keeps the rules and tends to fit in well with society, but this does not mean that he is willing to make great sacrifices in order to keep Law supreme. In short, Major alignments see their alignment as the way of life, while Minor alignment characters just see that as the way that one should live their life but they aren’t dogmatic about it.
When a player should choose the alignment of his character, he should decide what he wants his character’s primary instinct to be in a situation (chaos, evil, good or law) and then he should decide the general leaning of those actions. Again, the character picks either a logos or ethos as his Major and then must pick one of the other category as his Minor. The character must choose at least one Major alignment and no more than one Minor alignment. He may choose, if he would like, to make both his logos and ethos as Major alignments, which would essentially be similar to the old alignment system. A character cannot choose both alignments to be Minor because this would basically allow the character to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, with nearly no consequences.
Now as to how this fleshes itself out in game play. I will use the Lawful Good Paladin as an example because the penalties are fully described and outlined in the rules as written. Under the traditional system, if the paladin knowingly committed an evil act, then he lost his powers or if he knowingly committed a chaotic act, he lost his powers. This makes it virtually impossible for the player of this character class to make any real decisions on his own without jeopardizing those abilities. Under the newly proposed alignment system, the paladin (although he must still remain lawful good) can choose to be Major Lawful and Minor Good or Minor Lawful and Major Good (represented as Lg and lG, respectively). As an Lg paladin, he is firm on his convictions about maintaining order in society, but has a little more freedom in the manner which he maintains order; an lG paladin holds strongly in his belief in the supremacy of goodness, but may feel it necessary to step outside the lines to bring about the greater good. Basically, an Lg paladin feels that it is acceptable, on occasion, to step outside the lines of good in order to uphold the truth of law and an lG paladin feels that it may be necessary to break the rules in order that the good might be upheld.
In order to determine when an alignment shift is necessary or has been precipitated, the DM should look at the severity of the “offense” (that is the action that is characterized by an opposite alignment ethos or logos) as well as whether the offense was committed against the major or minor alignment. This section is obviously ultimately determined by the DM’s perception, but a general rule of thumb would say that one severe offense or a handful of lesser offenses against the Major alignment would cause an alignment shift, while it would take a few severe offenses or a consistent series of lesser offenses to cause a shift in the Minor alignment.
let me know what you think. this is still kind of a work in progress. i want the good, bad and ugly.