View Full Version : Point based alignment

2006-11-24, 04:05 PM
This will still be using the traditional alignments but those are converted to points, for some classes the alignment restrictions have been clarified somewhat to show the more prominent alignment.

Chaotic - Lawful axis
A single point value keeps track of how chaotic/lawful you are, a value of below -50 is concidered anarchic level, of between -50 and -16 is chaotic, between -15 and 15 is neutral, of between 16 and 50 is lawful and above 50 is axiomatic.
{table]example action|example alignment change value
Breaking a sensible law just because it's a law|-10
Breaking a law because it's a law|-5
Breaking a stupid law or following a sensible law|±0
Following a law because it's a law|+5
Following a stupid law because it's a law|+10[/table]Of course this table isn't absolute, feel free to judge other acts according to this table.

Evil - Good axis
A single point value keeps track of how good/evil you are, a value of below -50 is concidered vile evil level, of between -50 and -16 is evil, between -15 and 15 is neutral, of between 16 and 50 is good and above 50 is Exalted.
{table]example action|example alignment change value
Killing people for your personal amusement|-10
Killing people because they stand in your way or do not prevent someone else from killing people for no good reason even though it holds no risk to you.|-5
Not helping someone else when there is either major risk to you or it is of no significant business.|±0
Helping someone else even though there is either major risk to you or it is of no significant business|+5
Helping someone else even though there is both major risk to you and it is of no significant business|+10[/table]Of course this table isn't absolute, feel free to judge other acts according to this table. When this table applies to helping/killing your friends lower the value by 5.

2006-11-25, 01:04 AM
I would want to keep track of both "purity" and "leaning".

Under your system, someone who kills 1 person for their personal amusement every time they come back from helping two people, engaging in major risks, and having no reason to help them... becomes Exaulted quite quickly.

2006-11-25, 01:53 AM
The point values for various actions are too high, relative to the point requirements for an alignment; alignments will swing far too widely with this, or people will accumulate huge scores of whatever alignment they consistently act.

Plus, this has linear effects; your Good score goes up the same for the same Good act regardless of how good you already are; there should be diminishing returns so that you can't become exalted just by deciding to give a silver piece to every beggar you see until you hit exalted, and someone who will follow laws because they're laws, so long as they aren't ridiculous, and has been doing so for 90 years should not rate equally on the law-chaos scale as someone who will even follow stupid laws because they're laws (and has a job in a government bureaucracy), but who is only 30; yet, under this linear point system, there's a pretty good chance that the elder will have an alignment score higher than the younger, due to 90 years worth of +5 actions, vs 30 years (more like 20 or 15, actually) of +10 actions.

Likewise, someone with a score of Good 9999 suffocating a small child by kicking a puppy into their face in cold blood should have their alignment reduced by a lot more than if someone with Evil 9999 did the same thing. For the latter, that should be routine enough that it doesn't make them any more evil each time they do it; they need to find something more depraved to do.

Also, if I were doing a system like this (and I probably wouldn't, for the above reasons), I'd make the tables more complete for comparison reasons.

Finally, I agree with Yakk, purity should be tracked somehow, under a system like this.

2006-11-25, 02:50 AM
Good and evil are my main concerns; I would make up a chart or graph and mark where certain classes with alignment restrictions (I’m looking at you Paladin!) fall. That way there is a solid system in place for Paladins, fallen paladins, blackguards, bards, barbarians and other classes with alignment restrictions.

I’d also tie this in with reputation; for example the more evil someone is the higher their reputation (for evil) is and the more likely peasants and the like will run screaming in fear because of the way you looked at ‘em.
It can also be used to determine prerequisites for prestige classes or organizations. The higher on the lawful and good scales, the more likely that paladin will be accepted into the king’s holy order of knights, etc. In fact this system might be best used with the paladin and bard prestige classes (well mainly the paladin) found in the SRD.

I also agree that this system needs to be a bit more complete. That shouldn’t be too hard. But make sure to take a firm stance on the slaughtering of orc babies though.

Captain van der Decken
2006-11-25, 03:18 AM
I've seen this before, in NWN.

There should probably be a maximum/minimum score.
You could get really far into the good end, then run around killing people and stay good.

2006-11-25, 10:51 AM
This is d20. Let's use a d20!

Give each act a Good DC or an Evil DC.

Neutral acts have neither a Good nor an Evil DC.

Evil acts:
Going out of one's way to maximize the suffering of an act: DC +5 to 10
Killing someone for one's personal amusement: DC 25
Killing someone because they are inconvienient: DC 20
Destroying someone's life without cause: DC 15
Causeing harm to another without cause: DC 10
Killing someone that you don't know is evil: DC 10


Players have a Good and an Evil score. Each score is represented as Current/Maximium.

If you do a Good or Evil act, first roll to see if your Maximium goes up.

Roll d20 + Max vs the DC. On failure, your Maximium goes up.

Then increase your current Good or Evil by 1d6, up to your Maximium.

Every month, take 1/10 your maximium evil and subtract it from your current good. Take 1/10 your current good and subtract it from your current evil. Note that good is harder to maintain than evil.

Starting point:
A L 1 neutral character start out with 10-Wisdom bonus Max good and evil.
A L 1 good character starts out with 15+Wisdom bonus max good, and 5-Wisdom bonus max evil.
A L 1 evil character starts out with 15+Wisdom bonus max evil, and 5-Wisdom bonus max good.


Evil by Ommission? Don't know how to work in "the Paladin chose not to sacrafice himself for the burning tower of orphans" as a not-good act.

2006-11-25, 09:15 PM
I think not getting involved is the hallmark of neutrality and shouldn't give points towards evil. Otherwise, I'm not commenting because I find the DnD alignment system moronic; Law and Chaos are not opposites, for starters, it's Order and Chaos or Law and Anarchy. There's a big difference. Ugh. Rain mad! Smash Alignments!

2006-11-26, 02:45 AM
You could lose good points, somehow, for choosing to not commit a good act...

Ah. If you choose not to commit a good act, roll Good vs DC of the act.

On success, lose 1d6 Current Good points (not max).

Choosing not to commit an evil act does not lose you Evil points. As mentioned, atoning for Evil is harder than atrophying your Good.

Mauril Everleaf
2006-11-28, 11:44 AM
i understand that this system was created in effort to reduce the arbitrary "the dm decides that you shifted alignment" changes that people dont really like for whatever reason (i personally have no problem with it, but thats for another discussion). however all this does is move which part is arbitrary. before it was "that was chaotic enough to bump you down from lawful to neutral". now it is "that was about 8 chaotic points, which, along with the 4 points i gave you for your actions at that party and the 10 points you got from wanting to do your own thing rather than what that ruler who has nothing to do with you or your personal/societal code told you to do, makes you drop from lawful to neutral". just as arbitrary, but more math. i like the effort, but the end result was less than adequate to replace the current system.

2006-11-28, 05:19 PM
what about casting an evil spell to do a good act. example, a village has just been wiped out by orcs. enter players. party cleric casts animate dead to animate the villagers to get revenge on the orcs. is this a good act (helping the villagers get resolution against the orcs) or a bad act (casting animate dead). my way of getting around this is to cast speak with dead to get permission from the dead to do this.

2006-11-28, 05:27 PM
Hate to be someone who points this out, but more than a few people think that good deeds and bad deeds and more importantly bad deeds that effect long term goods ,dont cancel out

Animating Dead is bad, MMMMM kay, if you dont like it take it up with your DM It's his call after all

For all you know everytime you raise dead 10 devil's are released into the material plane ( Silly example but towards showing that just because it results in a good act somewher along the way that it does not deserve to be called a good act now). Its your DM's call and theirs lots of RL justification against consequence based ethics