PDA

View Full Version : New Alignment System - It's a Triangle!



Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 04:51 PM
Ever since I discovered the D&D alignment system, I've had serious problems with it. I know it's simplistic and restrictive, but so are all personality types. The problem with the "Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos" grid is that it's just not descriptive enough. It doesn't draw you in to characters' personalities.

I'm hoping my system will do just a little better. I've removed Law vs. Chaos, as well as an absolute "Good," keeping only Evil from the original system. Instead, I added two other qualities - innocence and wisdom - which reflect different aspects of Goodness. They are as different from each other, in my mind, as they are from evil.

So here's the chart:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/conworld/images/7/74/Alignment.png

And here are the 17 classes:

1 - The Child. (This is where we all start out. Some of us stay here our entire lives, if we are sheltered enough or if we shy away from important choices. Once you leave innocence, you can't go back.)

2 - The Youth. (Slightly less innocent, usually the first step toward adulthood as the child is awakened by some tragedy / epiphany. Still essentially naive and confused. Often has serious emotional swings.)

3 - The Peacemaker. (With a little knowledge, can step out and try to resolve conflict more easily than her more naive or emotional friends.)

4 - The Volunteer. (The Peacemaker's more practical and experienced counterpart. Willing to go to great lengths to serve the common good, if at times sacrificing her own innocence.)

5 - The Artist (a visionary with a strong sense of wisdom, often pacifistic, and has a foothold in reality but does not remain tied to it.)

6 - The Scholar (sees knowledge as the greatest possible achievement, but sometimes lacks that knowledge, especially self-awareness. Constantly pursuing higher wisdom, always learning from others.)

7 - The Sage (what the Scholar aspires to be. Possesses great, sometimes infinite wisdom, but at a high cost. Perhaps she has no relationships, or has a physical handicap that has forced her into an intellectual life. Or perhaps she just really loves to learn.)

8 - The Knight (usually young and a bit naive, a proud warrior willing to fight for a noble cause. Often takes great, sometimes excessive risks to help others. Noted for compassion and bravery, sometimes a bit egocentric.)

9 - The Veteran (a darker, more experienced version of the knight. Has seen many battles and knows the difference between a truly just cause and a foolish one. Nevertheless, eager to return to the battlefield for the sake of swift and often brutal justice.)

10 - The Leader (an adequate balance of compassion, wisdom, and discipline. Can occasionally result to cruelty sometimes in order to enforce good behavior. Charismatic and typically liked by followers, but occasionally receives contempt and jealousy.)

11 - The Comedian (the Leader's more cynical and humorous sidekick. Has a dark view of the world, but is able to express it in a positive way without resorting to violence.)

12 - The Scientist (like the Scholar, but less concerned with pure knowledge than with its practical applications. A good observer, with good and evil applications.)

13 - The Vigilante (sets high goals and achieves them at any cost. Often violent and obsessed with revenge, usually breaking laws to restore some sense of order or justice.)

14 - The Dictator (the leader but with an evil twist. Power-hungry and manipulative, he abuses his power and often intimidates people into serving him.

15 - The Mastermind (the evil genius. A scientist gone wrong.)

16 - The Abomination (this man's evil knows no boundaries. He is neither lawful nor chaotic, because at this point, it really doesn't matter how he killed them, just THAT he killed them. Sadly, these people do exist. There are not many of them, but they have a profound impact on society and how we perceive it.)

17 - The Insane (don't confuse this with 16. This person doesn't use insanity to justify criminal behavior, he simply doesn't understand morality or can't function at a high enough level to make use of it. Note that 17 appears on all three sides of the triangle, as it can result from an excess on any quality.)

I hope you enjoyed this!

SamBurke
2013-05-21, 04:57 PM
This may, simply, be the most brilliant work I have ever seen.

I applaud you, sir, for making sense. Now, I do wonder if it doesn't mess up a tiiiiiiiiiiny bit with each character having their own individual personalities, as this seems to dictate it pretty flatly. But, it's solid.

EDIT: It might be a little confusing. But still, it's good.

Amechra
2013-05-21, 04:58 PM
I like it. I really do.

I'm kinda thinking there should be a "quick" way to write out how far to each extreme you are, though.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 05:06 PM
Thank you so much for your kind remarks. All alignment systems are flawed, because they oversimplify the infinite complexities of human existence. Also, I'm not sure if people like the "Sage" I described actually exist, but for the sake of role-playing, it works. I might rename a few of the classes, but I'm pleased with the overall layout.

3WhiteFox3
2013-05-21, 05:15 PM
Thank you so much for your kind remarks. All alignment systems are flawed, because they oversimplify the infinite complexities of human existence. Also, I'm not sure if people like the "Sage" I described actually exist, but for the sake of role-playing, it works. I might rename a few of the classes, but I'm pleased with the overall layout.

I don't know, what would benevolent philosophers fall into? While several classes work the prominent three options seem to be The Peacemaker, The Volunteer and The Sage. I think that if you accepted that someone could be a sage without being quite so extreme. His ultimate goal is still understanding, but he has the self-awareness that the scholar lacks.

Anyway, I love this system, I may not agree with every point, but it works as the way that the Law/Chaos/Good/Evil system was intended to. Allow you to have the cruel, evil dictators and the heroes who oppose them. Only, this system allows you to focus more on what your character's personality is most
like.

An idea just popped into my head. What if you chose 1-3 classes ranked in strength? Something like 3, 7, 6 for a benevolent peacemaker who uses her understanding of people and human nature as well as her great knowledge to bring people together. If I used this system, that's probably how I'd run it.

Grinner
2013-05-21, 05:16 PM
Well done. :smallsmile: Bookmarked.

eftexar
2013-05-21, 05:24 PM
This is pretty nice. A bit of shock, from such a radical change, but I could see this working.

How would alignment based abilities and spells work though? I would think you could replace all references of law with wisdom, good with innocence, and cruelty with evil. But I don't know about chaos.

Grinner
2013-05-21, 05:32 PM
How would alignment based abilities and spells work though? I would think you could replace all references of law with wisdom, good with innocence, and cruelty with evil. But I don't know about chaos.

I don't think so. The 2-axes alignment was built on the idea that good, evil, law, and chaos are objective forces. From a realist point of view, that's not necessarily true, and therefore it, for some games, is an inherently flawed system. In fact, some of the definitions shared a great deal of overlap.

This system seems to be based on an axis of Darwinism (Cruelty) to understanding (Wisdom) to carefree enjoyment (Innocence). None of the viewpoints are necessarily correct, and they all have advantages and disadvantages. To me, it's an entirely different fish.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 05:33 PM
I would agree that law and wisdom go hand in hand, but they have significant differences. A sage takes action rarely, but for the best of causes. A lawmaker takes action frequently, and sometimes doesn't think about the moral implications. Sages are more concerned with the big picture, lawmakers with details. I think "lawful" would best fit with 10 (the leader) in my chart, rather than 7 (the sage).

eftexar
2013-05-21, 05:37 PM
All true, but I was just thinking more about the classes that would have them than if they actually matched or not.

For example a Paladin would have smite cruelty.
A Blackgaurd might have smite innocence.
A Xaoticist might have smite wisdom.

All of them are thematically fitting.

Grinner
2013-05-21, 05:45 PM
Oh. That...is a good question.

I'd probably give the Paladin something like Smite Heathen, which could affect all people not loyal to his deity/pantheon.

Thematically, I think the Blackguard would be better if he got some sort of disease or corruption ability instead of smiting.

I'm not sure what a Xaoticist is. Is it a homebrew class?

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 05:50 PM
I was hoping my system would work for a magic-free world, whether medieval or modern. It sort of leans toward the modern though, but it's meant to reflect universal human character types.

If you want to add magic to the system, you can, but I'm not going to specify any sort of spells associated with my 17 classes.

eftexar
2013-05-21, 05:50 PM
Xaoticist is in the Manual of the Planes I believe. It uses chaos as a weapon. If not it is in another book on planes or deities with a similar name.

Smite Heathen and Corruption would probably work well for those classes. I was just trying to think of ta way to mass replace the alignment abilities without having to go on an individual by individual basis.

[edit]: Malachi Lemont, I hadn't realized it was for a separate system and was thinking on D&D terms. Still it's something I'd see being able to be ported over into D&D.

inuyasha
2013-05-21, 05:53 PM
i think smite attacks would affect anyone more than 1 triangle away from you on the chart, let me break it down:

1: smites all but 2 and 1
2: smites all but 2, 3, 1, and 8
etc etc

see what Im thinking?

Grinner
2013-05-21, 05:55 PM
@Malachi Lemont: It definitely fits that better, but it also fits any "gritty" or introspective setting. The message at the heart of it seems to be "morality is uncertain".

@eftexar: I think this is simply too drastic of a change for that.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 06:01 PM
Grinner: My thoughts exactly. Murky morality is the best. There are many ways to be good, but only one way to be absolutely evil. To me, it just feels deeper than the whole "Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Good" thing.

Inuyasha: I think you said "1 would smite anyone but 1 or 2"
You might be forgetting that 1 is an innocent helpless child who would never hurt anyone let alone smite them. Or does smite mean something else other than "inflict pain in a supernatural manner"?

inuyasha
2013-05-21, 06:12 PM
oh...good point...so basically 1 is Elan from OOTS...yeah he'd never smite

Amechra
2013-05-21, 06:19 PM
I'm thinking that one thing that could "help" this, at least for the purposes of magic, is the fact that you can take the 16 groups and lump them into 4 for the purposes of spells, class features, etc...

You are Innocent if you are in classes 1, 2, 3, or 8.
You are Wise if you are in classes 5, 6, 7, or 12.
You are Cruel if you are in classes 13, 14, 15, or 16.
You are Balanced if you are in classes 4, 9, 10, 11.

So a Paladin could have Smite the Cruel in place of Smite Evil.
And an "evil" Paladin could have Crush the Innocent in place of Smite Good.

hamishspence
2013-05-21, 06:25 PM
What would a person whose Smite ability is against Wise characters be? A devotee of a deity of Foolishness, perhaps?

Grinner
2013-05-21, 06:25 PM
That's a good way to patch it into D&D.

Xuldarinar
2013-05-21, 06:37 PM
What an interesting, and somewhat unique, approach to alignment.

AuraTwilight
2013-05-21, 07:11 PM
My only problem with this is the way it's kind of slanted towards Evil being objectively defined while the closest to ultimate goodness is being either wise (the pinnacle of a wise person can't also be a sociopath?) or painfully naive (lots of children are total jerks by the way).

Not that I prefer the D&D morality system or anything, but there's not much real leeway for someone who is effectively a literal saint or anything.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 07:51 PM
My only problem with this is the way it's kind of slanted towards Evil being objectively defined while the closest to ultimate goodness is being either wise (the pinnacle of a wise person can't also be a sociopath?) or painfully naive (lots of children are total jerks by the way).

Not that I prefer the D&D morality system or anything, but there's not much real leeway for someone who is effectively a literal saint or anything.

I understand. Saints do exist, just like sociopaths. However, my chart does have lots of room for good, kind-hearted people. Check out The Peacemaker (3) and the Volunteer (4). Both of these can qualify if Saints, if played correctly. In theory, all seven on the upper row qualify as perfectly moral. As you get farther down you become more evil. And yes, evil is objectively defined. Goodness is as well, but to a lesser extent.

A note on wisdom: I believe wisdom goes far beyond knowledge, whether practical or spiritual. Wisdom means knowing what to say, how to act, and having deep insight into other people's feelings, making one able to respect them. Wisdom can take a lifetime to achieve, and comes from experience, not from studying, although education certainly has its place. That's what I think makes wisdom an important category, and a noble end for a hero to strive toward. The downside of wisdom is that sometimes knowing everything makes one melancholy and can paralyze one's ability to act.

As I see it, you can be smart and evil, but you cannot be evil and still be truly wise. Because the bad guys always lose, right?

Grinner
2013-05-21, 08:58 PM
My only problem with this is the way it's kind of slanted towards Evil being objectively defined while the closest to ultimate goodness is being either wise (the pinnacle of a wise person can't also be a sociopath?) or painfully naive (lots of children are total jerks by the way).

Not that I prefer the D&D morality system or anything, but there's not much real leeway for someone who is effectively a literal saint or anything.

Cruelty might be a little harshly named. The way I see it, each of the extremes represents a viewpoint. My two cents on the extremes:

The Sage understands the world and himself completely. He knows his place, and he knows what the outcomes of his actions will be. The problem with understanding everything is that everything includes other people; the Sage has great empathy. He knows other people very well, because he's walked in their shoes. He knows their hardships, their pain, and their suffering. For that reason, he cannot act. He understands that if he does act, he'll end up inflicting harm on others in the end.

The Abomination doesn't necessarily understand why he acts, nor does he care. He does know his priorities, however. He has great drive, and he's willing to make the hard decisions the Sage won't. Depending on his priorities, he may not be horrifyingly selfish, but he's willing to make horrifying sacrifices for his cause regardless.

The Child is simultaneously the most pitiable and the most enviable. He knows nothing and wants to do nothing. At the same, he is the one who takes the most pleasure from life. The problem there is that everyone grows up. People die. The things we say and the things we do have definite and real impact. Maybe it's best to just sit back and enjoy the show. Ignore the harsh realities. After all, what can you really change?

The Insane have just given up. It doesn't matter what they were in life. In the end, they were unable to cope.

The Sage couldn't stand it anymore. If everyone saw the things he saw, saw them the way he did, everything would be different. But changing the world is a tall order, and there was nothing he could do. The preordained order couldn't be broken; life was futile.

The Abomination failed. He threw everything he had onto the fire. Then, he threw everyone else onto fire, but that still wasn't enough. Now what does he have to show for himself?

The Child just never grew up. He just sank into a mire of hedonism, blind and without purpose.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-21, 09:15 PM
Grinner, you are quite the eloquent writer. Your post has really got me thinking about the price of wisdom.

Grinner
2013-05-22, 12:41 AM
Thanks. :smallbiggrin: I have my moments.

Nightraiderx
2013-05-22, 07:22 AM
It looks really good, definately hits on moral relativism.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-22, 08:11 AM
Thanks everybody for your great comments. I wonder if I'll go further with this and try to build a complete homebrew system around it. I'll admit I don't know much at all about the D&D system, so I should probably study that a little more before I try to make my own.

I was thinking of using this alignment system for a medieval setting that focuses around one city and the interactions between social classes. Probably lots of role play and not so much mechanics, but I might need help with the mechanics part so that the game would have a bit of structure. Any suggestions?

Yakk
2013-05-22, 10:13 AM
Barring the insane, such a range (a convex hull) can be described as an affine combination of the corners. That is, 3 positive values (a,b,c) such that they add up to 1.

This also means c = 1-a-b, and a=1-b-c -- so you could instead describe it as two positive values that add up to some value less than 1.

As this is an RPG, lets make a system.

You have three alignment values -- Innocence, Wisdom and Cruelty. They add up to 10, always. Maybe they each are a die pool.

You could also imagine a variation where you also have a value called, say, Karma. Karma would be the value your alignment die count sums to (10 above): someone with more Karma has "more alignment" in a sense.

Innocence + Wisdom + Cruelty = Karma

Now, you had this Insanity idea, what happens when you have "too much" alignment. With Karma, too much alignment is clear -- when you have more Innocence Wisdom and/or Cruelty than you have Karma, the difference is Insanity, or:

Innocence + Wisdom + Cruelty - Insanity = Karma
which can be rewritten as:
Innocence + Wisdom + Cruelty = Karma + Insanity

now, with a triangle on the left, the two options on the right seem questionable. So:

Innocence + Wisdom + Cruelty = Karma + Insanity + Grace

where Grace is a form of *granted* alignment points, Karma is *earned* alignment points, and Insanity is what happens when you have more alignment than you can "hold" -- the effects or ability to break the very rules of alignment.

With that much mechanics, you'd almost want a system that revolves around spirituality. Where your church, religion or god grants you Grace, your actions (in this or a past life) grant you Karma, and you can "go over" into Insanity through loss of either (or over-ambitious gain of IWC).

Not sure how you'd actively or passively use these alignment values as a player.

Oooo -- Grace could be the general term for "social support of alignment" -- so if you have an institution behind you, or a family, or whatever, that grants you Grace: alignment points you have, but only own due to it being granted to you by a "larger power".

That could be fun in a political game, and give some "crunch" to the advantages of having lots of social support. If your social support shrinks or collapses, your choice is to lose some alignment points (maybe Innocence, or gain Insanity.

We could rename Cruelty to something less negative as well: it could be about "getting things done" or "doing what has to be done". Or it could just be in the description.

Grinner
2013-05-22, 10:15 AM
Decide on the game's atmosphere first. Then focus on the mechanics.

Do you want life for characters to be short and brutal? Then the mechanics should encourage that; combat should be brief, ugly, and all too often deadly. Also, social mechanics should be emphasized as well. Perhaps a bidding mechanic is in order?

Keep in mind that the mechanics are the only real means by which the player can interact with the game world, so the crunch should try to reflect the fluff. I'm also of the opinion that the crunch should be as minimalistic as possible, but that seems to vary by player and taste.

Edit: Ninja'd?

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-22, 10:32 AM
Hmm. I got to thinking: What if we used the classes 1-12 to make a pantheon of Gods for some fantasy world? They might not be literal Gods who interact with mortals, but they could be symbols of worship and role models for mankind. I would choose not to have deities for 13-16, because these represent cruelty, so no one would want to worship them.

1 - The Fair Shepherd, God of nature, youth, and protector of children.
2 - The Weeping Maid, Goddess of emotion, and protector of those in grief.
3 - The Sweet Sister, Goddess of peace, and protector of the family.
4 - The Good Farmer, God of the harvest, and protector of workers.
5 - The Dreaming Damsel, Goddess of art, music, poetry, and nature.
6 - The Great Professor, God of knowledge and protector of students.
7 - The Wise Woman, Goddess of wisdom and protector of the old.
8 - The Prince of Light, God of chivalry, honor, and justice.
9 - The Grey Guardian, God of strength and protector of soldiers.
10 - The Queen of Heaven, Goddess of law and protector of all.
11 - The Laughing Lad, God of humor and happiness.
12 - The Blessed Lady, Goddess of healing, protector of the sick.

Grinner
2013-05-22, 10:42 AM
Hmm. I got to thinking: What if we used the classes 1-12 to make a pantheon of Gods for some fantasy world? They might not be literal Gods who interact with mortals, but they could be symbols of worship and role models for mankind.

You know, if this is going to be a d20 system, I've got an OGL magic system that will fit this perfectly. It's all about emulating role models, after all.


I would choose not to have deities for 13-16, because these represent cruelty, so no one would want to worship them.

Not true. I've known people who have revered the likes of Charles Manson, Hitler, and a number of serial killers. Cruelty represents power if nothing else, and some people respect only power.

Edit: I suspect this is because they crave it.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-22, 10:57 AM
Well okay then.
13-16 represent the fallen Gods, banished from Heaven. Worship of them is illegal and must be done in secret.

13 - The Stone Crone, Goddess of death, revenge, and punishment.
14 - The Master of Might, God of power, hunger, and ruthless oppression.
15 - The Shifting Sorceress, Goddess of mystery, poison, and seduction.
16 - The Fiend of Fire, God of rage, torture, and unthinkable pain.

17 - The Void. The Absolute Darkness. Not a God, but the absence of order.


Is this too much like Greek mythology? Well, at least my pantheon doesn't have a jerk-ass Zeus at the forefront. Do you like what I did with gender roles in 1-16?

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-22, 11:56 AM
Let's each pick an alignment that would be interesting to play, and try to flesh it out with details. You all know much more about D&D than I do, so you would know what kind of attributes to give each class.

Remember: This is not D&D, this is something completely new, but of course D&D will be a major influence.

Personally, I think 9 "The Veteran" would be really fun. I'm picturing a grizzled old warrior, probably with a battle-ax, who knows a lot about the battlefield, but doesn't understand human nature that well. He's not a jerk, but he mostly keeps to himself. He prefers actions over words, but he's not an all-brawn no-brains type. He serves as a mentor for younger, less experienced soldiers. He makes a good foil for the Comedian (11).

Yakk
2013-05-22, 01:04 PM
Worshipping gods who control "dark" forces is often a better idea than those who control "fun happy" forces, because you can ask for deliverance.

A god does not need to exemplify a state of a virtue to have dominion over it. The god of abomination might be in charge of harvesting abominations, and keeping them all in his world of rewards.

The god of abomination might also tempt disrespectful mortals into being said abominations, in order to increase his harvest, but those who give him his due he can pass over.

Rolep
2013-05-22, 01:25 PM
Love it!
I think that Cruelty should be renamed Utilitarianism, to symbolize the willingness to do anything to achieve ones aims, without regard for emotion.
Also, I like the freedom to still be wherever you want on the Good vs Evil & Law vs Chaos arcs, since I often use a house rule that only outsiders and people like Paladins and Clerics have alignments: all of the others can be what they want and change it at any time.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-22, 02:02 PM
Thanks! So which of my alignments is your favorite? Or which one would make for the best roleplay?

AugustNights
2013-05-22, 09:13 PM
I will likely use this system, but use the word "Ruthlessness" in the place of "Cruelty". Ruthlessness seems to smack more of direct, approaches popular or otherwise. I think of ruthlessness being like Alexander's supposed Gordian Knot solution, where the direct way to solve the problem is to sever the chord.
It's not exactly cruel (except that so many scholars would have liked to have untied it, likely to better understand it), but it captures a straightforward unsympathetic approach.

I also like the multiple score idea, including Insanity and Grace.

Fates
2013-05-22, 11:47 PM
Hmm...I'm really unsure how to feel about this.

On the one hand, this is obviously far, far better than the D&D alignment system. It allows for a degree more depth, not only because it is more varied but also because it is more subjective.

However, I find, for myself at least, it is still lacking in the same way that the standard alignment system, simply less so. The system is still overly objective, and still forces people into repressive boxes-well, triangles, now- that ultimately fail to define most characters in any deep sense. There are just more boxes, and the boxes relate better to real life.

So, in conclusion, I like the direction you are going with this. I have never been at all fond of the alignment system as a whole and ideas like this one really make strides towards open-endedness and realism. That being said, I, personally, will not use this system, nor do I use the vanilla system, if I have any say in things. You've made a better alignment chart, and I appreciate that, but it still operates with the same restrictive framework, and that is why I am not sure what to make of it.

Fates
2013-05-22, 11:54 PM
Love it!
I think that Cruelty should be renamed Utilitarianism, to symbolize the willingness to do anything to achieve ones aims, without regard for emotion.
Also, I like the freedom to still be wherever you want on the Good vs Evil & Law vs Chaos arcs, since I often use a house rule that only outsiders and people like Paladins and Clerics have alignments: all of the others can be what they want and change it at any time.

While I'd not like to get into a political argument, both for my own sanity and per the forum rules, I'm really fairly certain you're misinterpreting the idea of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that states that, simply put, decisions both on a large and small scale should be made to maximize happiness and reduce suffering. While the idea is questionable at best, it is hardly the belief system of a true tyrant- while it is sometimes taken to mean that emotions should be discarded, this is, in essence, because doing so would further the greater good, not one's personal aims. It is an application of "the ends justifies the means," but only if those ends are for the betterment of all- selfishness has no place in a true utilitarian mindset- at its core, utilitarianism is charitable and benevolent, and it seems like you are suggesting otherwise.

Yitzi
2013-05-22, 11:57 PM
Hmm. I got to thinking: What if we used the classes 1-12 to make a pantheon of Gods for some fantasy world? They might not be literal Gods who interact with mortals, but they could be symbols of worship and role models for mankind. I would choose not to have deities for 13-16, because these represent cruelty, so no one would want to worship them.


Of course there'd be people who want to worship them, namely people who are themselves cruel. If Lolth and Hextor can get worshippers, why not gods for 13-16? Might as well make one for 17, as well, though he'd likely not have any worshippers outside a few cults.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 09:23 AM
I guess you could have a few people who worship the void of chaos (17), but it's not really a God in the traditional sense, because it has no physical representation. But you could still call it a God if you really wanted to.

Yitzi
2013-05-23, 09:35 AM
I guess you could have a few people who worship the void of chaos (17), but it's not really a God in the traditional sense, because it has no physical representation.

Physical representation is most definitely not necessary to be a god in the traditional sense.

In any case I think you'd want not the void of chaos for 17, but rather something Lovecraftian.

mystic1110
2013-05-23, 09:36 AM
Hmm. I got to thinking: What if we used the classes 1-12 to make a pantheon of Gods for some fantasy world? They might not be literal Gods who interact with mortals, but they could be symbols of worship and role models for mankind. I would choose not to have deities for 13-16, because these represent cruelty, so no one would want to worship them.

1 - The Fair Shepherd, God of nature, youth, and protector of children.
2 - The Weeping Maid, Goddess of emotion, and protector of those in grief.
3 - The Sweet Sister, Goddess of peace, and protector of the family.
4 - The Good Farmer, God of the harvest, and protector of workers.
5 - The Dreaming Damsel, Goddess of art, music, poetry, and nature.
6 - The Great Professor, God of knowledge and protector of students.
7 - The Wise Woman, Goddess of wisdom and protector of the old.
8 - The Prince of Light, God of chivalry, honor, and justice.
9 - The Grey Guardian, God of strength and protector of soldiers.
10 - The Queen of Heaven, Goddess of law and protector of all.
11 - The Laughing Lad, God of humor and happiness.
12 - The Blessed Lady, Goddess of healing, protector of the sick.

You could have 13 - 16 be either "fallen" gods as you made OR include them as some of the more benevolent gods attempting to help those who are cruel?


13 - The Stone Crone, Goddess of death, revenge, and punishment.
14 - The Master of Might, God of power, hunger, and ruthless oppression.
15 - The Shifting Sorceress, Goddess of mystery, poison, and seduction.
16 - The Fiend of Fire, God of rage, torture, and unthinkable pain.

So instead include them in your worship as:

13 - The Hobled Crone - Goddess of Death and Revenge, who teaches those who feel the need for vengence to turn the other cheek.
14 - The Dying King - God of Power and Might, who teaches tyrants that they to will die.
15 - The Blind Lover - Goddess of Mystery and Seduction, who teaches that healthy love is equal and open.
16 - The Final Judge - God of Pain and Rage, who inflicts torture on those who practice it.

=====

That way "good" people can pray to each of the 16 gods.

In the same vein . . . evil can pray to the 16 gods but there "evil" interpetations

ex. . .

1 - The Tyrant Child - Nature can be deadly same thing with innocence, where there is no concept of good or evil
2 - The Beuatiful Youth - Youth is capricious and self-interested. It's all about you.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 09:43 AM
Please explain. I'm intrigued. You're definitely right about a God not needing a representation. In fact, this can make the God even more powerful. Maybe 17 can be called "The Unseen" or something like that, and could be the most powerful of them all, but also the farthest removed from mankind. Those who go insane have been "touched by the Unseen."

Mystic 1110, I like what you did with 13-16. Now people are allowed to worship them again. I think that's a much better way of looking at it than I had in mind. Besides, the whole "evil God imprisoned for eternity who will break loose at the end of time" thing is a bit cliche'd.

Also - gender roles of the Gods? I made an equal number male and female, but they're definitely not distributed equally. There's a reason both the war gods are male. And the Goddess of ultimate wisdom and the leader of them all are both female. The society is run by men who like to elevate women to "divine" status (and thus deny their freedoms). Any observations?

Grinner
2013-05-23, 09:44 AM
So instead include them in your worship as:

13 - The Hobled Crone - Goddess of Death and Revenge, who teaches those who feel the need for vengence to turn the other cheek.
14 - The Dying King - God of Power and Might, who teaches tyrants that they to will die.
15 - The Blind Lover - Goddess of Mystery and Seduction, who teaches that healthy love is equal and open.
16 - The Final Judge - God of Pain and Rage, who inflicts torture on those who practice it.

I like this better. The previous ones didn't reflect the moral uncertainty of the system.

mystic1110
2013-05-23, 09:50 AM
Hell I personally believe that the cruelest people will be in 1. They won't be cruel because they want to hurt you, but they concieve that it would hurt you. I would think sociopaths would be in 1.

As for 16. I can imagine a Psychopath who really really does not want to kill - like a better version of Dexter. He's still really really cruel . . . but does not actually carry it out.

In fact you can double your system, have a subjective triangle and an objective triangle. How the person views himself, and How is the person viewed by others?

===

And you don't need a god for 17. People can imagine a god for 17, but you don't actually need one for it, and you probably shouldn't because 17 means different things for different people.

Grinner
2013-05-23, 09:53 AM
Also - gender roles of the Gods? I made an equal number male and female, but they're definitely not distributed equally. There's a reason both the war gods are male. And the Goddess of ultimate wisdom and the leader of them all are both female. The society is run by men who like to elevate women to "divine" status (and thus deny their freedoms). Any observations?

I don't see why all-knowing entities beyond time and space necessarily need genders...That said, attributing genders to them definitely gives them a stronger identity. Perhaps their worshippers only personify them with genders?

Also, if they do have genders, the Sage's god should be either hermaphroditic or neuter. I recall that there's a long history associating hermaphrodites with wisdom, but in ancient China, there were a bunch of high-ranked eunuch advisors.

Edit:

And you don't need a god for 17. People can imagine a god for 17, but you don't actually need one for it, and you probably shouldn't because 17 means different things for different people.

I imagine 17 would be something like oblivion or entropy. It's not so much an entity as it is a way of life, a dire inevitability for those who reach too far.

mystic1110
2013-05-23, 09:58 AM
If I have time I think it would be really Awesome to come up with 4 Aspects of each god.

1 male/ generally "good" aspects
2 female/ generally "good" aspects
3 male/ generally "bad" aspects
4 female/ generally "bad" aspects

-----

that way you can ramp up ambiguity up to 11 :smallbiggrin:

mystic1110
2013-05-23, 10:06 AM
Example

For the God of 8.


8 - The Knight (usually young and a bit naive, a proud warrior willing to fight for a noble cause. Often takes great, sometimes excessive risks to help others. Noted for compassion and bravery, sometimes a bit egocentric.)

Aspects of the Eighth Royal

The Day Prince - Teaches men should be full of Valor, and Justice. But he does not teach what that Justice is. Also the Day prince that men should be chivalrous, and that women should accept their chivalry.
The Dawn Princess - Teaches women to always be Truthfull and full of Honor. But the price of dishonor is social stigmatism. Also women should follow proper Etiquette, and never speak against a man.
The Dusk Prince - Teaches than men should be Compassionate and Brave. This means sometimes forgetting honor to do the right thing. but this also mean that he encourages men to throw their lives away in a losing fight.
The Night Princess - Teaches women to not be afraid to love. But this means she is also the goddess of prostitutes.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 10:06 AM
"The cruelest people will be in 1" = "Innocent Children are evil"? Seems like an awfully bleak world view. It has some credibility, since you can be cruel without realizing it, but I think once a child commits a destructive act, they leave 1 forever, might briefly wander through 2 and 8, but eventually lands in 13 or 16.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 10:09 AM
Example

For the God of 8.



Aspects of the Eighth Royal

The Day Prince - Teaches men should be full of Valor, and Justice. But he does not teach what that Justice is. Also the Day prince that men should be chivalrous, and that women should accept their chivalry.
The Dawn Princess - Teaches women to always be Truthfull and full of Honor. But the price of dishonor is social stigmatism. Also women should follow proper Etiquette, and never speak against a man.
The Dusk Prince - Teaches than men should be Compassionate and Brave. This means sometimes forgetting honor to do the right thing. but this also mean that he encourages men to throw their lives away in a losing fight.
The Night Princess - Teaches women to not be afraid to love. But this means she is also the goddess of prostitutes.

I like that each of the categories could have multiple Gods, but the Dawn and Night Princesses don't seem to have anything to do with each other, in my mind. They should be different sides of the same coin, not rivals. You might see it differently, though. Thanks for the input.

Edit: Just started a new thread. :smallsmile: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284897

mystic1110
2013-05-23, 10:09 AM
That's false logic. I never said that everyone in 1 will be cruel - just if you find the cruelest person in the world - they would probably not have a concept of good or evil. Most high level sociopaths do - but they are high level enough to stick with social manipulation. Low level sociopaths just comit atrocities because. . . they can't conceive of them as atrocities. As such they would be in 1 since they are effectively insane and innocent.


-------

fair enough, just trying to help anyway i can :smallsmile:

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 10:11 AM
That's false logic. I never said that everyone in 1 will be cruel - just if you find the cruelest person in the world - they would probably not have a concept of good or evil. Most high level sociopaths do - but they are high level enough to stick with social manipulation. Low level sociopaths just comit atrocities because. . . they can't conceive of them as atrocities. As such they would be in 1 since they are effectively insane and innocent.


-------

fair enough, just trying to help anyway i can :smallsmile:


Ok. I'll buy that. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.
But what you call "insane and innocent" falls into 17, not 1.

Grinner
2013-05-23, 10:12 AM
"The cruelest people will be in 1" = "Innocent Children are evil"? Seems like an awfully bleak world view. It has some credibility, since you can be cruel without realizing it, but I think once a child commits a destructive act, they leave 1 forever, might briefly wander through 2 and 8, but eventually lands in 13 or 16.

Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I could see that if, say, they had passed into 17. Children can be wantonly cruel, yes, but in the end, what most of them seek is admiration.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 10:18 AM
Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I could see that if, say, they had passed into 17. Children can be wantonly cruel, yes, but in the end, what most of them seek is admiration.

You're right. I've stopped making sense. Let's just leave it at that.

Grinner
2013-05-23, 10:20 AM
You're right. I've stopped making sense. Let's just leave it at that.

Well, I didn't mean it like that, but alright.

Yakk
2013-05-23, 10:47 AM
Alternative name for Cruelty: Expedience

TheWombatOfDoom
2013-05-23, 12:21 PM
Just wanted to pop in and say I really like this system, and will be following it with much interest!

NichG
2013-05-23, 01:12 PM
Something like a tiger is both innocent and cruel.

For me I'd probably go with the axes: Visceral, Cerebral, Social. The idea is that the alignment doesn't describe what kind of person the character is, but it describes the primary way in which they feel the world around them and get feedback from it. Basically its 'how does this character perceive the value of things'. No characters are inherently 'bad' or 'good' based solely on where they fall in the chart; they can all have the same range of emotions and the

Visceral: Along the visceral axis you have people who get the biggest push from some direct sensation or experience - blood pumping, adrenaline, physical contact, whatever. On the 'bad guy' side you'd have someone who murders for the smell of blood and the sensation of the kill; on the 'good guy' side you have the adrenaline junky hero.

Cerebral: Along this axis you have people whose way of perceiving value is mental. Here is the chessmaster, the person who does things to see a complex plan come to fruition. It could also just as well include the poet who sees and experiences love as an abstract idealized thing.

Social: Here you have people whose main push is how the world sees them and their social standing or interactions with others. This could be a good samaritan, who only feels good when they're helping others. It could also be a ruthless industrialist who is out to make his family famous, or a conquerer who wants their name to be remembered throughout history.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 01:46 PM
That sounds great, NichG! You should make your own diagram and then we can compare how our alignment systems match up.

Straybow
2013-05-23, 07:30 PM
These systems are personality tests, not alignments. Might as well use Myers-Briggs. Pretending good and evil don't exist is silly, and that's why many players don't like alignment systems. They want inconsequential gaming, not reminders of the weight of moral choices.

Just my two bits. Carry on. :smallcool:

TuggyNE
2013-05-23, 07:39 PM
These systems are personality tests, not alignments. Might as well use Myers-Briggs.

OK, my next game is gonna use MBTI!

just kidding.

Or am I? :smalltongue:

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-23, 09:31 PM
These systems are personality tests, not alignments. Might as well use Myers-Briggs. Pretending good and evil don't exist is silly, and that's why many players don't like alignment systems. They want inconsequential gaming, not reminders of the weight of moral choices.

Just my two bits. Carry on. :smallcool:

You're right. My goal was to combined personality types with good and evil. I sort of failed, but I was never planning to ignore good and evil. My whole system was about morality. It was just a version of morality that has a bit more personality than D&D alignment. That's all.

Yitzi
2013-05-23, 10:16 PM
Pretending good and evil don't exist is silly, and that's why many players don't like alignment systems. They want inconsequential gaming, not reminders of the weight of moral choices.

Wouldn't inconsequential gaming work better as a non-role-playing game? It's a lot easier to avoid thinking about consequences if there's no other player to put yourself in the shoes of.

Grinner
2013-05-24, 12:54 AM
These systems are personality tests, not alignments. Might as well use Myers-Briggs. Pretending good and evil don't exist is silly, and that's why many players don't like alignment systems. They want inconsequential gaming, not reminders of the weight of moral choices.

Just my two bits. Carry on. :smallcool:

From what I've seen, the traditional D&D two-axes alignment does nothing to encourage moral dilemmas. If anything, it only splits NPCs into acceptable targets and unacceptable targets, acceptable meaning "Chaotic Evil" stamped across the forehead. It's up to the DM to drive home the importance of the players' decisions, not the system.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 01:26 PM
From what I've seen, the traditional D&D two-axes alignment does nothing to encourage moral dilemmas. If anything, it only splits NPCs into acceptable targets and unacceptable targets, acceptable meaning "Chaotic Evil" stamped across the forehead. It's up to the DM to drive home the importance of the players' decisions, not the system.

Very true. So perhaps I missed the mark in trying to create this alignment system at all. You can still have morality in a game without having alignment. And the whole "acceptable target" thing sounds useful for gaming purposes, but I wonder if I could complicate it a bit by having each of the players not know the others' alignment?

TuggyNE
2013-05-24, 03:38 PM
And the whole "acceptable target" thing sounds useful for gaming purposes, but I wonder if I could complicate it a bit by having each of the players not know the others' alignment?

Only if there is no mechanical way to discern alignment; if there is, there'll be a very good chance someone will use it, either by accident or purposely trying to find their allies' character.

Straybow
2013-05-24, 03:55 PM
From what I've seen, the traditional D&D two-axes alignment does nothing to encourage moral dilemmas. If anything, it only splits NPCs into acceptable targets and unacceptable targets, acceptable meaning "Chaotic Evil" stamped across the forehead. It's up to the DM to drive home the importance of the players' decisions, not the system. That's what "alignment" means. I'm aligned with LG God X, you are aligned with CE Deity Z and therefore a legitimate target. You might not be actively CE, just a soldier earning a paycheck. Maybe you find rape and torture distasteful and confine yourself to pillage and burn, you are still aligned as CE. If you want to change you'll have to align yourself with another deity.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 03:58 PM
Ok, so maybe my system can work. I wasn't trying to change the definition of alignment, I just wanted to add new Gods to align yourself with. I'd have to set rules about whether you're allowed to change deities.

Grinner
2013-05-24, 04:00 PM
That's what "alignment" means. I'm aligned with LG God X, you are aligned with CE Deity Z and therefore a legitimate target. You might not be actively CE, just a soldier earning a paycheck. Maybe you find rape and torture distasteful and confine yourself to pillage and burn, you are still aligned as CE. If you want to change you'll have to align yourself with another deity.

Join or die. That's not a dilemma. That's a Hobson's choice.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 04:12 PM
Join or die. That's not a dilemma. That's a Hobson's choice.

So..... Do you think my 17-part alignment pyramid is worth trying? Should I try to build a game around it? Any advice?

Grinner
2013-05-24, 04:17 PM
So..... Do you think my 17-part alignment pyramid is worth trying? Should I try to build a game around it? Any advice?

You do want you want. It's a very good idea, but for the moment, I'm thoroughly confused about the project's objective.

Are you trying to do objective or subjective morality?

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 04:25 PM
I'm trying to do absolute, objective morality, just like the D&D system. I'm sorry if that was unclear earlier. I just didn't find myself comfortable with the law vs. chaos axis, because it seemed to similar to the good vs. evil. So this is just another way of looking at absolute morality: Wisdom vs. Innocence vs. Cruelty. I'm undecided, however, about whether to include the Gods we talked about, one God for each class.

NichG
2013-05-24, 06:23 PM
I guess then the question you need to ask is 'what is the meaning of morality', and make sure all concepts you include are equally meaningful in whatever sense you pick.

Questions to answer:

- Are alignments descriptive or prescriptive (e.g. are people Wise because they do wise things, or do they do wise things because they are Wise)

- What is the origin of alignments? Are they there a cosmic energy associated with certain ideas (e.g. in D&D, evil is an energy), or are they there because it is a way that people view the different categories of being (e.g. humans classify this action as evil, this action as good, this person as intuitive, that person as emotional). Compare D&D alignments to stats, for example.

One would say that D&D alignments are because of cosmic energies/forces, whereas D&D stats aren't 'fundamental' to the in-character universe, they're just an abstract system that attempts to quantify a complex character.

- Do alignments represent a literal allegiance to powerful entities, or are said powerful entities/gods simply also being described by the same chart. In other words, does the God of Wisdom decide what Wisdom means, or are they merely being classified by it like everyone else.

- What is the game-design objective you are trying to achieve with the alignment system. Are alignments there to add character diversity (in which case you might focus on abilities with alignment prereqs) or are they there to punish/reward certain character actions (e.g. Paladin did a bad thing, loses access to his powers), or are they there to provide useful shorthands for information gathering abilities (e.g. Detect Evil sorts of things).

TuggyNE
2013-05-24, 07:04 PM
Join or die. That's not a dilemma. That's a Hobson's choice.

You're going to have to explain just why that's a bad thing for a game system to have.

Grinner
2013-05-24, 07:19 PM
You're going to have to explain just why that's a bad thing for a game system to have.

I had been under the impression that Malachi was aiming for subjective morality. Because he's actually aiming for objective morality, that's no longer an issue.

NichG
2013-05-24, 08:33 PM
You're going to have to explain just why that's a bad thing for a game system to have.

I got the impression that this was directed more at the comment that an objective morality alignment system encouraged meaningful moral choices. E.g. that red-or-blue moral systems remove meaning from the choice because it reduces the actual content of the ideas of good or evil into 'which team am I on, and who is the enemy team?'. E.g. people don't have to think about or use judgement to determine good or evil, because the universe slaps on a sticker which can be read out with magic.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 09:29 PM
I got the impression that this was directed more at the comment that an objective morality alignment system encouraged meaningful moral choices. E.g. that red-or-blue moral systems remove meaning from the choice because it reduces the actual content of the ideas of good or evil into 'which team am I on, and who is the enemy team?'. E.g. people don't have to think about or use judgement to determine good or evil, because the universe slaps on a sticker which can be read out with magic.

Nailed it. I want a true "good vs. evil" mentality not "us vs. them."

As for your earlier questions, I would say that in my system, unlike D&D, morality is not a cosmic force, but a widely accepted concept reinforced by generations of human choice and understanding. Within the created universe, people use the Gods as archetypes and role models for good human behavior. There is no direct interaction between Gods and mortals. However, the Gods still exist as important symbols of the game.

They way I was planning it, alignments would be both prescriptive and descriptive. Each triangle will have its own range of acceptable and semi-acceptable actions. For example, a Knight's acceptable actions might include pay a debt, tell the truth, rescue a lady, and kill on the battlefield, among others. An unacceptable action would be rape or murder of the innocent. Semi-acceptable tasks would be to seek revenge and kill a former enemy, or torture an enemy for information. These tasks would be possible, but would move you from 8 to a crueler alignment like 9 or 13. I want to make it so that you can change alignment slowly, but not easily. It's more like a "slide toward evil" than a "breaking point."

And yes, there will be special abilities with alignment pre-requisites. For example, only someone with a truly benevolent alignment (3 or 4, maybe) would be able to convince a certain evildoer to turn himself in and repent. Only the wisest players (7) would be able to perceive the almost indiscernible lie behind an NPCs believable story. Being innocent (1) probably wouldn't have many advantages, except having a high happiness factor that could boost the morale of other players and NPCs. Being cruel (13-16) would obviously have its unique abilities in any task requiring the extreme use of force or intimidation.

Grinner
2013-05-24, 10:12 PM
Okay. I could get behind that.

The first thing to do would be to unequivocally differentiate good and evil. In my previous posts, I had been thinking of the classic Lawful-Good-Paladin-of-Genocide Problem. Your average Paladin can slaughter entire villages worth of goblins, who may be greedy but are otherwise harmless. Moreover, he can do so without fear of divine reprisal because they're "evil". This is an unfortunate case of mechanics determining fluff. To avoid this, certain acts must be either good or evil; there can be no middle ground.

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-24, 10:53 PM
Here's one suggestion:

While alignment is important for what your character is able to do, other characters' alignment does not affect the morality of your character's deeds. That means, if you hunt down and kill a mass murderer who happens to be defenseless at the time, you yourself have become a murderer, even though you have removed a threat to society. That's absolute morality. Now, you might still be hailed as a hero for killing the infamous criminal, but your morality will certainly drop from innocence toward cruelty.

Innocence and cruelty are pretty clear-cut. Cruelty is harming others, while innocence is the lack of doing so. Wisdom is a little more complicated. One definition of wisdom, for game purposes, could be making choices that do the greatest good for the most people (utilitarian wisdom which I don't necessarily agree with.) Another definition could be understanding other characters' motives. Maybe I'll set it up so that if you make wise choices, you unlock the ability to gauge people's thoughts and emotions better. (Nothing supernatural there, just keen perception.)

Another thought - do you think there should be certain situations that force you to move away from innocence, making you choose between wisdom and cruelty, or some middle path? Or do you think innocence/ignorance should be an option that is available the entire game?

Malachi Lemont
2013-05-25, 10:05 PM
If you want to discuss this alignment system, please meet me on AIM. Search for Malachi Lemont. My profile picture is the Lion King.

Xuldarinar
2013-05-25, 11:13 PM
Looking at this system, I now cannot help but wonder something. If we throw taint (HoH) into the mix, how would they interact.

Tragak
2013-05-26, 03:30 PM
The problem with the "Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos" grid is that it's just not descriptive enough. It doesn't draw you in to characters' personalities. Personally, that always struck me as the point: alignment is supposed to be so general that widely divergent personalities can be covered by the same one. 3x3 alignment is one of the tools for creating a character's personality, "100 adjectives" is one of the other ones, and the main problem is people using one tool as an excuse to create a flat character (aka "roleplaying the alignment"), as opposed to creating a nuanced character that happened to have more than one tool included.


These systems are personality tests, not alignments. Might as well use Myers-Briggs. Pretending good and evil don't exist is silly, and that's why many players don't like alignment systems. They want inconsequential gaming, not reminders of the weight of moral choices. Also, this.

knightcraft10
2016-06-16, 08:26 PM
I could be totally nuts, but I feel almost like this is slowly becoming an attibute set (str,con,dex,int,wis,cha. S.P.E.C.I.A.L.)

(Also this might be the deepest conversation I have ever heard, and it's over a theoretical game mechanic. Good job.)

I see the two-axis system as this:
Good: for the good of the people
Neutral: for the good of the people (if I feel like it)
Evil: for my own good (and maybe like, one or two other people)

And the chaos and law axis has two "settings". The societal setting, and the lawless/wild setting: (societal first, then wild)
Lawful: I follow the rules* in pursuit of my good vs evil views/ I follow my good vs evil views most of to all of the time, and I try to keep with a pattern of what I do and dont like.
Neutral: to break the law, I will need a reason, because I can't do anything from jail (good, or evil)/ I stive for good or evil, and that sometimes falls outside of I use forethought, but CAN improvise
Chaotic: the rules* are just inhibiting. They do have power though, which makes them scary/I have a habit of doing whatever, but I usually try to get a result in line with my good or evil beliefs.

*=personal code or actual laws

And ther's always the "I chose chotic good beacuse I like that flavour outsider." Which is the "
Ramble ramble ramble.

I actually like the dnd system (with this interpretation), but I think this could be AWESOME!!!1!!!



Now to the meat of my suggestion:

I agree with the earlier statements that cruelty is very clearly evil, and wisdom looks usually good.
I would probably personally move to something like "piety (believing in a higher power) (more general than innocence), empathy (more general than wisdom), and competition (more general than cruelty)"

And then express the "goodness/ evilness" with a "tier", or "aura strength" type system (like the dnd DETECT EVIL rules) that is SEPERATE.

Hey, call it innocence (good) and cruelty (evil)

CuriousWanderer
2016-06-16, 10:00 PM
I feel like in this system I am somewhere between (5) The Artist and (6) The Scholar.