Zeal's Expanded Alignment System

[sonofzeal]

This is my own version of the alignment system. It keeps much the same, but also changes much. Don't expect everything here to line up with the PHB, or BoED/BoVD, or FC1/FC2. All those sources were consulted in making this, and much was used, but the goal was to reform the system, not merely reproduce it.


PREFACE

Alignments are a touchy subject. We all recognize that they don't correspond to the real world all that well, but at the same time they're an integral part of 3.5 and earlier. The battle between good and evil is central to much heroic fantasy, and D&D is fundamentally a heroic fantasy game. You've got Mechanus and Limbo, Celestia and the Abyss. Devils war against Demons, and Yugoloths assist both sides. Red Dragons are temperamental and vicious, Hobgoblins are organized and cruel, Lammasu are noble and look out for others, and Unicorns are gentle but unpredictable. Alignment is never going to capture all the variation we see, but unless we have the names and personalities of every single monster memorized (a sisyphean task), alignment is a useful abstraction and gives us a quick starting point. It also lets us do certain things (Detect Chaos, Smite Evil, Desecrate, Word of Chaos) that often make for good gameplay.

However, as many will be quick to point out, the default system has some critical flaws. Many of the terms are poorly described and poorly understood, and it's a very stark "black and white" worldview. The class that's most tied up with the alignment system, the Paladin, is one that's famous for causing all sorts of difficulties when he starts turning teammates over to the King's Justice for petty theft, or smiting them with a longsword for telling a lie. Many players also take their alignment as an excuse to do anything (known to some as the CN Rogue Fallacy). There's also a lack of distinction made between a corrupt peasant and a champion of the blackest hells.

That's where this comes in. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement, it's easy to play with, and it's close to the actual system. The system needs an improvement, for the reasons listed above and for the sheer contentiousness of it. Probably no other part of the game inspires so many arguments. Many of the fixes, though, create difficulty at the table. They're hard to arbitrate (percentile alignment, subjective ethics), or require a significant change to the system (removing alignment entirely), or both (factions and philosophies instead of alignments). This system tries to walk the line between what's easy to play with and what improves the more difficult wrinkles.



ZEAL'S EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SYSTEM

Simply put: instead of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos being on three point scales each, they're on five point scales.

Exalted: "I am a good person!"
Good: "I try to be a good person."
Neutral: "I'd like to be good person... but it's inconvenient sometimes." (Or, "I'm alright, I think.")
Evil: "I don't care about being a good person."
Vile: "GO TEAM EVIL!"

Axiomatic: "I AM THE LAW"
Lawful: "I am a shoemaker, as my father and his father before him."
Neutral: "You know, sometimes I just feel like getting away from it all, but I've got Molly to care for and all these bills..."
Chaotic: "Chill, dude.... it's like, no big deal... Hakuna Mutata, y'know?"
Anarchic: "Ooo, bicycle!"

- Most beings, especially the civilized races, tend away from the extremes. As a rule of thumb, perhaps 90% of humans are in the "core" alignments, with only 10% or so in the "expanded" alignments. Heroes are, of course, often the exceptions, and very often the most interesting NPCs lie outside the norm too. Still, in most campaigns even Orcs will usually not be Vile, and Elves are only rarely Anarchic. Individual campaigns may differ, of course. Consult your DM. If you are the DM and you're using the system, be aware that societies founded around these extreme alignments are likely to be quite alien by human standards. If Goblins are mostly Vile, then their culture is going to be radically different than just about anything in human history. This can be good or bad, depending on the campaign.

- Descriptions that reference alignment should be understood to also include the more extreme form. An "always lawful evil" creature like a Rakshasa may equally well be axiomatic, vile, or both. Paladins still have to be some flavour of "good" and "lawful", but can be LG, LEx, AxG, or AxEx, and still find acceptance in their order. Certain creatures, generally those with alignment based effects, may fall exclusively into the more extreme category at the DM's discretion (Demons and Devils may all be Vile, Solars may all be Exalted, Inevitables are almost certainly all Axiomatic), but this is not necessary.

- Optionally, spells and effects that interact with alignment such as "Smite" and "Protection From" generally have half effect (round down, minimum 1) against the Core alignments, and doubled effect against the Expanded alignments. Protection From Law would provide a +1 AC vs Lawful creatures, and a +4 against Axiomatic creatures.

- For "Detect Evil", the strength of the aura is computed from half the creature's HD for Evil, and double the creature's HD for Vile, except those who already have an entry on the table. If you don't use the table, have Evil people show up with only ever a "faint" aura, and Vile people show up like a demon might. "Detect Law/Chaos/Good" work in similar ways.

- Having a "faint" evil aura (as per Detect Evil) should not be considered a crime in most civilized lands, but a "moderate" or stronger one may be a crime worthy of execution in and of itself, as would being shown Vile some other way. Not all lands would have even this provision, and conversely some may not tolerate even a trace of evil. Paladins are generally instructed to follow the laws of the country they are in.

- The Paladin oath should be amended to the following: "a paladin will never knowingly associate with Vile characters".

- The Druid alignment restriction should be amended to "not Exalted, or Axiomatic, or Vile, or Anarchic". Druids are required to have their own priorities, and proper care for the earth requires at least some degree of objectiveness.

- ??? (may be expanded later)

[sonofzeal]

GOOD AND EVIL IN MORE DETAIL

This axis assumes an objective standard for goodness and evilness, the details of which may change depending on the campaign. The category things fall into depends on how closely they adhere to this objective standard.

An Exalted person always does his absolute best to adhere to the objective standard of ethical behaviour, to the best of their understanding of the situation at hand. They should be absolutely committed to the highest principals of goodness, and above mundane temptations. Exalted people are not infallible, and they may on very rare occasion violate individual tenants of the ethical code, but should only do so in the interest of the "greater good" as they understand it (though they may not always correctly predict the consequences of their actions). An Exalted human could lie to protect innocents, or permit an innocent to die to save a town, though even these actions could cause an alignment shift if repeated or critically misjudged.

A Good person is one who is aware of the ethical code, and tries to follow it. They give a few copper to the widows, are nice to those around them, and try to help out where they can. Good people make nice neighbours. However, they are still vulnerable to sloth, greed, lust, and the like. Doing good and avoiding evil is still a reasonably high priority for them, but they will occasionally do evil as well as good. A Good person could steal if in need, or commit adultery, or pass by chances to do good things. As a general rule, a Good creature should consider its own wellbeing above following the path of the light, but committing any Evil or Vile acts should still be cause for regret and such acts should not be frequent.

A Neutral person is generally one who is aware of the ethical code, and thinks it's admirable but gives it a low priority. For them, ethics are more of a suggestion. All thing being equal, a Neutral person will still usually choose the good, but are easily swayed by their own concerns, and it simply won't occur to them most of the time. They're unlikely to do evil without sufficient provocation, and will likely do good unless it's too inconvenient, but the boundaries for "provocation" and "inconvenient" are fairly low. A Neutral person generally recognizes that they aren't Exalted, but many still make excuses for themselves and think of themselves as Good, and do the occasional thing to assuage their conscience. Of course, some choose neutrality as an ideology and reject both goodness and evil, and these people function as one would expect in the traditional system.

An Evil person is generally one who completely ignores the ethical standard entirely. They have no real motivation to do good unless it personally profits them (of course, more chaotic creatures don't always need motivation to do things). Evil people are unlikely to do evil for its own sake, but certainly won't shy away from it if they think it'll benefit them or make them feel good, and generally find that it does. They'll rape if they can, donate to the orphanage if it benefits them, kill if they want to, and generally behave themselves in public. They'll usually have some sort of reason for doing good or evil, but (temptation being what it is) will usually find it much easier to discover reasons to do evil. Many deny the existence of good and evil entirely, others merely choose to ignore it.

A Vile person is a different beast entirely, someone who is outright committed to the cause of evilness. Unlike an Evil person they are almost invariably aware of the ethical standard, but see it as a challenge or adversary. Setting out to deliberately perpetrate and encourage as much evilness as they can, Vile people will commit atrocities for the sheer purpose of committing them, and avoid Good acts if they can possibly avoid it. They will generally hate Good and Exalted people for their purity, and seek to destroy it. They may have other priorities besides doing evil, and may take the long view and refrain from murdering one now if they can slaughter ten later, but in general should pass up chances for evil only with reluctance.


-----


A Note on Moral Dilemmas

Many DMs enjoy putting characters in difficult situations, to see what choice they make. These often lead to poignant storytelling and excellent RP. However, there is a danger of Exalted characters being "trapped", where every possible choice leads to a serious loss of status. In these cases, it should always be permissible for the Exalted character to take the "better" of the two options. The key question that should be asked is whether the actual action taken is Evil or Good.

For the purpose of the Expanded Alignment System, the ends do not justify the means, though it may serve drama for a character to make a difficult choice like that. If the actual action is Evil though, the person should suffer the penalties for committing an evil act, with the possibility of restoration later. For things that cannot be regained, like sacred vows and the Saint template, the Powers That Be should be encouraged to offer some sort of trade, some reward for that sacrifice, if it really resulted in some greater good. Examples might include some artifact or special ability, the chance to exchange those lost feats/levels for something new, or just recognition and praise from important NPCs. As for Vile entities, they should be willing to do an evil act even if it has otherwise positive repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest evil, they should not be overly concerned if a particular bit of mayhem and slaughter leads towards the greater good.

By parallel, a good act that has negative consequences should still be treated as if it were good. Examples include healing a mass murderer, saving a child prophesied to bring pain and torment, or willing self-sacrifice for some dark purpose. A Vile creature should strongly resist any action like that (though they may be forced by circumstances or superiors), and should regret it in the same way that a Good character might regret doing something evil for the greater good. This may also entail a loss of respect from their Vile peers, even if there is some admiration for the greater evil accomplished. As for Exalted entities, they should be willing to do a good act even if it has otherwise negative repercussions. Though they prefer to work towards the widest good, they should not be punished for the end result of their actions (regrettable though they may be) if the actual steps they took were Good. An exception would be the aforementioned willing self-sacrifice for a dark purpose, although the issue here is more about why they were trying to accomplish it in the first place.

Unlike a good or evil act, a neutral act should be judged more by the foreseeable long term effects, if there are any. For the legally minded, Proximate Cause is a good standard here. If someone could be found negligent for their action that led to some significant good or evil, then the action should be considered at least mildly good or evil. Key here is the question of whether the good or evil result was logically foreseeable, given what they knew at the time, and of whether it led directly to that good or evil. In either case, this sort of moral negligence should not be treated as harshly as a direct action of villainy or nobleness.

[sonofzeal]

LAW AND CHAOS IN MORE DETAIL

Law and Chaos (at least, under this system) essentially boil down to three elements: respect for authority, rationality, and personal consistency. All three correlate with Law, and their opposites all correlate with Chaos. To determine someone's location on the spectrum, consider all three separately, and note that a person can have varying shades of expression within each.

"Respects Authority" is about your reaction to government and the laws of the land, but also about your respect for tradition and reaction to more immediate authority figures, like a team leader. Someone strongly in this category follows the laws, follows tradition, and follows the leader. Someone strongly outside of this category disregards the laws, disregards tradition, and disregards the leader. Both of these can be equally dangerous in the wrong circumstances (cutthroats on one end, and Minions Of Evil (tm) on the other), and both of these can be equally beneficial in the right circumstances (underground resistance movements on one end, and protectors of the realm on the other). Also note that someone with a profound disregard for authority may still follow it occasionally, if only by coincidence.

A Lawful soldier may follow her commander's orders, while a Chaotic soldier might leap upon an opportunity that presents itself. A Lawful teen may take up his father's trade, while a Chaotic teen might leave to find his own destiny. A Lawful mayor may follow the rules carefully and try to preserve the status quo, while a Chaotic mayor may embark on new projects and radical changes to the way things are traditionally done.


"Rationality" is about how balance reason and emotions. Someone strongly in this category follows their mind instead of their heart, will usually act in a thoughtful manner to further their goals (which may be selfish or selfless), and prefers to have a well-thought-out and logical plan. Someone strongly outside this category goes with their gut, will usually act in whatever way feels best in the moment, and doesn't care much for planning. Note that this has little to do with intelligence, as often times the spontaneous approach requires quicker thinking and more creativity to pull off. Also note that reason can be mislead as easily as emotions.

A Lawful commander may weigh a captured soldier's life against the risk of rescue, while a Chaotic commander may refuse to leave a teammate behind. A Lawful assassin might meticulously plan a mission, while a Chaotic assassin might go with whatever opportunity presents itself. A Lawful adventurer might tabulate the value of all loot obtained, while a Chaotic adventurer would care more about how impressive each item is, rather than its worth.


"Consistent" is about, well, consistency. People solidly in this category are reliable, predictable, and unchanging. They'll stick to the techniques they know work, and are likely to have a fairly narrow focus with a few things they do well. People solidly out of this category are fluid, dynamic, and adaptive. They like to try new things and new techniques, and are likely to have a broad and ever-expanding bag of tricks.

A Lawful swordsman may work to perfect one particular style, while a Chaotic swordsman may try learning a little of all of them. A Lawful crook may have a regular modus operandi, while a Chaotic crook may be random and unpredictable. A Lawful businessman may keep his word, while a Chaotic one may change his mind even after the contract's signed.




An Axiomatic person is solidly in all three categories. They will respect authority, they follow logic and reason, and they do not shift their behaviour easily. They don't necessarily come at the absolute top at all three, but they will be solidly in each.

A Lawful person is solidly in two categories, but middling or less in the third. It is much easier to be Lawful than it is to be Axiomatic, and there's a fair variety of expression here depending on which is the odd one out. As a whole, Lawful people will resemble their Axiomatic counterparts, but with more depth and complexity to their personality.

A Neutral person is a mix, anything that does not fall into one of the other categories. It's the broadest and most varied of the categories. If you don't know where a character lies, it's probably here.

A Chaotic person is solidly outside of at least two categories, but middling or stronger in the third. Like its counterpart, it is much easier to be Chaotic than it is to be Anarchic. As a whole, Chaotic people will resemble their Anarchic counterparts, but with a more defined and comprehensible personality.

An Anarchic person is solidly outside of all three categories. They scoff at authority, they're driven by emotion, and they're highly adaptive. Just like Axiomatic, they don't need to match the absolute in each category, but should show a definite tendency in each.

[sonofzeal]

EXAMPLES

Note that the character analysis here only represents my own opinion. If you change one of the points (say, arguing that Elan lacks respect for authority), then the final result may change accordingly.

Superman
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He's solidly on the side of "good" against "evil"
- He rarely commits evil acts (property damage follows in his wake, but rarely intentionally), even when it would help him.
- He has strong respect for authority and tradition
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Axiomatic Exalted


Batman
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He's solidly on the side of "good" against "evil"
- He commits evil acts as a matter of expediency (violence, torture, property damage), but rarely if ever out of self-interest.
- He has little regard for authority figures and laws
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Lawful Good. (note: results may vary under other systems)


Rorschach
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "good" against "evil"
- He commits frequent evil acts as a matter of expediency (violence, torture, property damage), and often out of self-interest (theft, especially of cans of beans).
- He has no regard for authority figures and laws
- He has extremely strong personal convictions
- He has remarkable personal consistency.

Conclusion: Lawful Neutral. (note: results may vary under other systems)


Belkar
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "evil" against "good"
- He has no regard for authority figures and laws except out of self-interest
- He has no personal convictions beyond doing what he likes
- He has adjusted his personality several times over the course of the adventures.

Conclusion: Anarchic Vile.


Elan
- He believes in right and wrong.
- He chooses "good" against "evil"
- He commits few evil acts, usually in a good cause.
- He has moderate respect for authority figures and laws (personal excitability
aside, he seems to respect Roy)
- He has few personal convictions beyond doing what he likes
- He has shown change over time and a strong willingness to experiment.

Conclusion: Chaotic Good, possibly Chaotic Exalted (I'd have to read through the archives again to figure out)

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm not terribly certain that you can answer the stated criticisms of the Nine Alignment System by creating a narrower system from a broader one.

For example, both Exalted & Good would count as "Good" under the Nine Alignment System; for someone who already sees "Good" as too restrictive, having the choice between Good(subset A) and Good(subset B) is not going to be appealing.

If you are trying to adapt the Objective Alignment System for people who find the Nine Alignment System restricting, then you've already lost. The reason they're unhappy is because "Good" is defined at all - they'd prefer to cloak their characters in more subjective terms, or purely descriptive ones (e.g. "selfish").

[Zain]

I think it looks great, but is loyalty to YOUR code of conduct more lawful or chaotic if that code is at odds with the laws of the land? Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.

[sonofzeal]

I'm not terribly certain that you can answer the stated criticisms of the Nine Alignment System by creating a narrower system from a broader one.

For example, both Exalted & Good would count as "Good" under the Nine Alignment System; for someone who already sees "Good" as too restrictive, having the choice between Good(subset A) and Good(subset B) is not going to be appealing.

If you are trying to adapt the Objective Alignment System for people who find the Nine Alignment System restricting, then you've already lost. The reason they're unhappy is because "Good" is defined at all - they'd prefer to cloak their characters in more subjective terms, or purely descriptive ones (e.g. "selfish").

I wouldn't describe it as a "narrower" system (well, I wouldn't, but then it's mine :P). By giving more options, it gives a greater total expressive power. In particular, the "core" alignments are now much fuzzier. Someone who wasn't comfortable putting themselves in the same category as Unicorns and Paladins might be more comfortable with "Good" under this system, as it's a softer term and less restrictive. Those who don't like the black-and-white worldview can stay with the fuzzier "core" alignments, while those (like myself) who enjoy more exaggerated characters can have fun with the "expanded" ones, and both can function in the same world with the same rules, using pretty much everything from the official game, without undue effort.

Of course, some people already have their own solutions already. Some groups toss out alignment altogether, and either houserule or ban alignment-based spells and effects, and this too can be made to work. If they've got something that works for them, great! No need to change. However, a lot of groups don't have something that works well, and this is for them.

[KillianHawkeye]

Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.

I agree with Zain. It should be Evil to kill somebody just because of their alignment. It's also lazy.

[Sewblon]

I saw a system somewhere else that I think would work better than this in some respects. Instead of having Good VS Evil and Law VS chaos at all, have Greed VS Charitableness, Brutality VS Peacefulness, Honesty VS Dishonesty, and Activeness VS Laziness. Its more complicated, but the terms are less ambiguous and you can describe more complex concepts with them.

[sonofzeal]

I think it looks great, but is loyalty to YOUR code of conduct more lawful or chaotic if that code is at odds with the laws of the land? Also I disagree that having a strong evil Aura is grounds killing. I think that having a Evil Alignment should not be a crime, but an evil act is.

I'm going to expand on Law/Chaos in an hour or two, after I take care of some other stuff. However, I will say that both personal code and laws of the land are factors, and that they will generally be equally weighted (but DMs can assign different weightings, of course).


And I never said that killing evil things is good, only that it's legal in some places. Big difference, especially in a pseudo-medieval society that isn't always as enlightened as we might want it to be. Also, I tried to make sure it was obvious that different countries vary in both directions, depending on degree of enlightenment. I only included it at all to remind DMs that "evil" isn't as bad as it is under the official system, and shouldn't generally be treated as smite-worthy by self-righteous Paladins.

[sonofzeal]

I saw a system somewhere else that I think would work better than this in some respects. Instead of having Good VS Evil and Law VS chaos at all, have Greed VS Charitableness, Brutality VS Peacefulness, Honesty VS Dishonesty, and Activeness VS Laziness. Its more complicated, but the terms are less ambiguous and you can describe more complex concepts with them.

I entirely agree that such a system might work far better than the D&D alignment system! However, I believe it would be difficult to integrate with base D&D. You'd have to define each of those traits for all the races and monsters, and the various alignment-based spells and effects suddenly become very complicated. This system is intended as a middle-ground, something you can use in a normal game without much effort but which still helps many of the problems.

[Zain]

And I never said that killing evil things is good, only that it's legal

can I sig this please?

Also, i look forward to the Law vs Chaos part

[Sewblon]

I entirely agree that such a system might work far better than the D&D alignment system! However, I believe it would be difficult to integrate with base D&D. You'd have to define each of those traits for all the races and monsters, and the various alignment-based spells and effects suddenly become very complicated. This system is intended as a middle-ground, something you can use in a normal game without much effort but which still helps many of the problems.

I imagine that alignment-based spells, abilities, and effects would be reduced or abandoned under the system I proposed, which would necessitate that the Paladin be reworked from the ground up or abandoned, that would please many people but it would anger just as many. So you are correct, my suggestion doesn't fit with D&D RAW. But if anyone knows of a system that would be a better fit for my suggestion, please let me know.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I wouldn't describe it as a "narrower" system (well, I wouldn't, but then it's mine :P). By giving more options, it gives a greater total expressive power. In particular, the "core" alignments are now much fuzzier. Someone who wasn't comfortable putting themselves in the same category as Unicorns and Paladins might be more comfortable with "Good" under this system, as it's a softer term and less restrictive. Those who don't like the black-and-white worldview can stay with the fuzzier "core" alignments, while those (like myself) who enjoy more exaggerated characters can have fun with the "expanded" ones, and both can function in the same world with the same rules, using pretty much everything from the official game, without undue effort.

So really, what you're doing is subdividing the Nine Alignments System to provide fine tuning to the Detect Alignment school of spells?

As a player, you can self-define your interpretation of a given alignment; you don't need to write down on a piece of paper that you are Exalted in order to RP that interpretation of Good. Likewise, the DM can decide how any given Good NPC acts within the strictures of the Good alignment. Your system merely provides a new mechanical label for existing subdivisons of the Nine Alignments System; useful if you want to impose new restrictions (e.g. Paladins must be Exalted; Bards cannot be Axiomatic) or if you want Detect Alignment to provide more information about the personality of a given NPC.

I mean, it's a fine way of fiddling with the Nine Alignment System, but it is certainly a subsystem, rather than a new Alignment System.

Now, if you wanted to add a new axis, you could try Funky/Square

[sonofzeal]

can I sig this please?

Go ahead!

I imagine that alignment-based spells, abilities, and effects would be reduced or abandoned under the system I proposed, which would necessitate that the Paladin be reworked from the ground up or abandoned, that would please many people but it would anger just as many. So you are correct, my suggestion doesn't fit with D&D RAW. But if anyone knows of a system that would be a better fit for my suggestion, please you let me know.

GURPS, from my limited experience, might be a good one for this.

So really, what you're doing is subdividing the Nine Alignments System to provide fine tuning to the Detect Alignment school of spells?

As a player, you can self-define your interpretation of a given alignment; you don't need to write down on a piece of paper that you are Exalted in order to RP that interpretation of Good. Likewise, the DM can decide how any given Good NPC acts within the strictures of the Good alignment. Your system merely provides a new mechanical label for existing subdivisons of the Nine Alignments System; useful if you want to impose new restrictions (e.g. Paladins must be Exalted; Bards cannot be Axiomatic) or if you want Detect Alignment to provide more information about the personality of a given NPC.

I mean, it's a fine way of fiddling with the Nine Alignment System, but it is certainly a subsystem, rather than a new Alignment System.

Now, if you wanted to add a new axis, you could try Funky/Square

Well, you sound like someone who's just fine with the alignment system as written, which is good too. I entirely agree, mature players and DMs can deal just fine with it, understand that everything is a continuum, and play accordingly. Honestly, that's almost ideal. If you've got that already, hey, keep right at it.

This is for people who are having difficulty there, whose gaming groups are not at that point. By spelling it out, making it official, you help people conceptualize the difference. You also gain more expressive power; I can describe my Lizardfolk Rogue as "Axiomatic Evil" (or "AxE"). This would tell you much more about her than I could under the core system, where she doesn't fall evenly into any of the official boxes, which imply that all Evil things are Vile, when she's really more amoral.

As a final note, it also relaxes many restrictions. Paladins don't have to be as perfect any more, since "law" and "good" are both rather broader terms now and edge farther into Neutral's territory in the old system. This also helps Monks, Warlocks, Druids, and anyone else with alignment restrictions. It doesn't remove them entirely (which wouldn't be a bad thing but might upset some groups), but it does make them a bit more flexible.

But hey, if you've got no problems with the base system, keep on rocking it up!

[ericgrau]

My main contention is that exalted, vile, axiomatic and anarchic are extremely rare in real life, assuming they exist at all. Which leaves... some decent definitions of the regular alignments.

OTOH if - except for intentionally outrageous games - it makes players say "Oh, I don't want to play those 4 extremes" and kills the old stereotypes, I'm 110% all for this.

[Oracle_Hunter]

As a final note, it also relaxes many restrictions. Paladins don't have to be as perfect any more, since "law" and "good" are both rather broader terms now and edge farther into Neutral's territory in the old system. This also helps Monks, Warlocks, Druids, and anyone else with alignment restrictions. It doesn't remove them entirely (which wouldn't be a bad thing but might upset some groups), but it does make them a bit more flexible.

This is new.

I guess I didn't see this in your write-up so far. Were you planning on redefining these alignment restrictions to be less constraining? If so, how?

[sonofzeal]

My main contention is that exalted, vile, axiomatic and anarchic are extremely rare in real life, assuming they exist at all. Which leaves... some decent definitions of the regular alignments.

OTOH if - except for intentionally outrageous games - it makes players say "Oh, I don't want to play those 4 extremes" and kills the old stereotypes, I'm 110% all for this.

I do mention this, that something like 90% of people are in the "core" alignments, with a mere 10% spread around all 16 "expanded" alignments. On the other hand, players love playing exceptions to the rules, and I know I enjoy playing really exotic personalities. But yes, the general result is to push people away from the extremes of each category, by giving them a moderate that's much easier to embrace.

This is new.

I guess I didn't see this in your write-up so far. Were you planning on redefining these alignment restrictions to be less constraining? If so, how?

I mention this in the second paragraph under "The System". It's easy to miss, but basically it just says that, where the books say "Chaotic", they should be read to mean "Chaotic or Axiomatic".

Think about it this way. Under the old system, there was only one alignment out of nine that Paladins could be. That's 11% of the possibilities, assuming an even division of each. Under my system, there are 4/25 alignments that Paladins can have, or 16%. If you include the UA variants in the "Paladin" calculations, the numbers go from 44% to 64%. For Monks, the numbers move from 33% to 40%. For Warlocks, it goes from 56% to 64%. Yes, I'm a math nerd. =P

It's not a big change, but it is a change. Paladins are still shoehorned in one corner of the chart, but that corner got a bit bigger in both directions. They can still be "Axiomatic Exalted", but they can now also be "Lawful Good" and be notably imperfect in both categories without losing Paladin powers. They still have that silly oath, but whatever. Honestly, I'm all for houseruling away alignment restrictions altogether, but that's up to individual groups.





Oh, and for those interested - the Law/Chaos portion is now live. Man that took more thought that it was worth. =P

[TheCountAlucard]

Superman
...
Conclusion: Axiomatic Exalted

Meh, depends on who's writing for him. Plus, you know, he is kind of a jerk.

[sonofzeal]

Meh, depends on who's writing for him. Plus, you know, he is kind of a jerk.

True, it definitely depends on the writer. Batman also goes up and down based on the writer, perhaps even more so. The examples should be correct given the character "facts" listed, but it's quite possible to argue those in different directions. The example is more about how the system can be applied in practice, rather than a definitive character study on those heroes.

[Saph]

I actually quite like this. I'm not sure if I'd want to do the extra work to houserule the Protection from X line, but I like your descriptions of the alignment subtypes. Nicely done. :)

[sonofzeal]

I actually quite like this. I'm not sure if I'd want to do the extra work to houserule the Protection from X line, but I like your descriptions of the alignment subtypes. Nicely done. :)

Thanks! Coming from you, that means a lot.

Think I should list the Protection/Detect/Smite rule as optional? Or would that just weaken the whole thing by leaving too much unspecified? Individual DMs will of course make their own adjustments anyway, and I can see that being one of the more disposable parts. I think it helps tie it together in actual game (plus makes sense that Paladins would be stronger against Devils than against random bandits), but it does take an extra bit of thought and is easy to forget. What do you think?

[Saph]

I'd just list the rules as optional, I think. The Prot X line is already pretty powerful against outsiders, and having a variable Smite is probably more trouble than its worth (instead of evil/not evil, you have to add in more variables, which slows down combat). However, having Vile show up more strongly than Evil on a Detect spell makes a lot of sense, and doesn't require much houseruling.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Think about it this way. Under the old system, there was only one alignment out of nine that Paladins could be. That's 11% of the possibilities, assuming an even division of each. Under my system, there are 4/25 alignments that Paladins can have, or 16%. If you include the UA variants in the "Paladin" calculations, the numbers go from 44% to 64%. For Monks, the numbers move from 33% to 40%. For Warlocks, it goes from 56% to 64%. Yes, I'm a math nerd. =P

But this is not what you are doing. Both Axiomatic & Lawful (and Good & Exalted) would be considered "Lawful" and "Good" under the Nine Alignments System - they are subsets of the larger field.

All you're doing here, at least as far as alignment restrictions, is moving about furniture. It's not like you are mixing alignment choices (e.g. "Axiomatic requires the killing of Chaotics" would mix Evil in with Lawful), you're just subdividing existing choices.

This really would be best displayed in picture. Well, here's a cheap attempt:

Spoiler

Show

Lawful(3.5) = [Lawful(Z) + Axiomatic(Z)]
Good(3.5) = [Good(Z) + Exalted(Z)]

Exalted(Z) + Lawful(Z) = Subset{Good(3.5) + Lawful(3.5)}

In short, any Paladin who is AxG, LG, LEx, AxEx in your system could be described as accurately as "Lawful Good" under the 3.5 rules.

I guess I still don't see how your system provides different choices. Is there something wrong with my analysis?

* * *

Your mechanical work with the various alignment-based spells is novel, but, as Saph noted, probably more trouble than it's worth.

[Hat-Trick]

But this is not what you are doing. Both Axiomatic & Lawful (and Good & Exalted) would be considered "Lawful" and "Good" under the Nine Alignments System - they are subsets of the larger field.

All you're doing here, at least as far as alignment restrictions, is moving about furniture. It's not like you are mixing alignment choices (e.g. "Axiomatic requires the killing of Chaotics" would mix Evil in with Lawful), you're just subdividing existing choices.

This really would be best displayed in picture. Well, here's a cheap attempt:

Spoiler

Show

Lawful(3.5) = [Lawful(Z) + Axiomatic(Z)]
Good(3.5) = [Good(Z) + Exalted(Z)]

Exalted(Z) + Lawful(Z) = Subset{Good(3.5) + Lawful(3.5)}

In short, any Paladin who is AxG, LG, LEx, AxEx in your system could be described as accurately as "Lawful Good" under the 3.5 rules.

I guess I still don't see how your system provides different choices. Is there something wrong with my analysis?

* * *

Your mechanical work with the various alignment-based spells is novel, but, as Saph noted, probably more trouble than it's worth.

The point is that it's easier to imagine Batman as a paladin in this system than in the standard, or at least that's the way I'm looking at it. Sure, you can use the old system, but this system makes the alignments a little easier to understand. Looking at a character sheet with LG on it in the old system automatically set the character to contend with the paladins and other supreme good beings. Now, LG just means he's more Good than most and is more Lawful than most without being compared to Mr Morality.

[hamishspence]

I figured that in 3.5, it was always able to represent the "mildly aligned" as well as the strongly aligned.

When I look at the alignments given to characters in campaign settings, and compare to the versions of them in D&D novels, or the sample characters in Complete Scoundrel,

I figure Lawful Good doesn't just mean nearly an archon, it can mean those who are only mildly Lawful and Good.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The point is that it's easier to imagine Batman as a paladin in this system than in the standard, or at least that's the way I'm looking at it. Sure, you can use the old system, but this system makes the alignments a little easier to understand. Looking at a character sheet with LG on it in the old system automatically set the character to contend with the paladins and other supreme good beings. Now, LG just means he's more Good than most and is more Lawful than most without being compared to Mr Morality.

So... this is more of a primer than a new alignment system?

Fair enough, I suppose.

I still think WotC should re-release the 2E PHB chapter on alignment - even with the odd definitions of True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, it must have done a better job than anything WotC has released.

[HCL]

The basic issue is that chaotic vs lawful is bull****. Anarchism as its generally seen is not unprincipled action, but action on principles that are different from those in authority. So its both lawful and chaotic.

Also, take a look at Binders from tome of magic. They are against the mainstream religious tradition, but they are for their own tradition. So are they lawful or chaotic? Tome of magic says they are lawful.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The basic issue is that chaotic vs lawful is bull****. Anarchism as its generally seen is not unprincipled action, but action on principles that are different from those in authority. So its both lawful and chaotic.

Also, take a look at Binders from tome of magic. They are against the mainstream religious tradition, but they are for their own tradition. So are they lawful or chaotic? Tome of magic says they are lawful.

Anarchists are Chaotic. Binders are Lawful.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Anarchists actively seek to tear down all established authority, because they think it's the right thing to do. Chaotic.

Binders uphold their traditions and arrange their society along such lines. Lawful.

Next?

[hamishspence]

You can be Chaotic and have traditions.

the Diaboli in Dragon Compendium, are Chaotic Outsiders, with very little in the way of organization, yet they have traditions, taboos, etc in place of laws.

The sample binder in Tome of Magic, the dwarf Morden (page 16) is Chaotic Neutral, and, if anything, Lawful or Good binders are less common than Chaotic or Evil ones. Where did you get "they are Lawful" from?

When I go right back to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1st ed) it emphasises that all Underdark societies, Chaotic and Lawful, emphasise the necessity of discipline in their people- the Law and Chaos tends to manifest itself in differences in large-scale organization.