Zeal's Expanded Alignment System

[Kurald Galain]

Exalted: "I am a good person!"

I believe that many bigots and hypocrites believe themselves to be "good". That's probably not what you mean by "exalted".

[hamishspence]

"lay down life for strangers" is a common theme.

Laying down life for family, or even friends, is associated with Neutral, and occasionally Evil, but "self-sacrificing behaviour" in general is associated with Good in the PHB

"Good beings make sacrifices to help others"

Heinlein cited this in some of his books- Starship Troopers, there is a short story collection of his that has a speech in it ending with this, and I think possibly others have it.

Some other authors take a similar approach, with the "truly heroic" being those willing to spend their lives to save others that they don't even know.

[Chrono22]

Another forumgoer created a similar alignment system.
His was a three axis system instead of a two axis one.

Normally you have good vs. evil and law vs. chaos... and combinations thereof.
The third axis had to do with how characters abide by their alignment. As an example, in his system there would be a difference between a lawful good paladin who hunts evil and stops injustice, and a lawful good paladin who protects people and assists the needy.

[hamishspence]

So "Promoter" vs "Attacker"?

I wonder if a villain who "promotes evil" might handle differently from someone who "attacks good"?

Maybe they would be quiet and secretive, tempting others to do evil, spreading the "evil word" etc, but never seeking to actively destroy those who are good?

In the same way, a "promoter and protector of Good" would protect good people, spread the word on being good, but not actively go out after evil to physically destroy it.

[Kurald Galain]

Another forumgoer created a similar alignment system.
His was a three axis system instead of a two axis one.

Wasn't that the Square / Funky axis?

[hamishspence]

As given, I'd say the one presented here doesn't seem that far off from the present one, it just has "extreme" ends of each axis.

I prefer "Lawful" and "Good" as terms, to not be really extreme, given that humans aresn't supposed to "tend toward neutral" according to the PHB.

In the same way, sample Chaotic Good characters in books like the Heroes Lorebook, aren't incredibly anarchic, they are just a bit leery of authority.

The extremes might be interesting, but they seem like they should be rare in play. A modron might by Axiomatic, but the majority of paladins should be probably "only lawful"

[Oracle_Hunter]

Wasn't that the Square / Funky axis?

That's a different one.

I guess that's kind of the issue I have with this - it doesn't add anything to the Nine Alignment System. Yes, it imposes additional constraints, but those constraints are not different in kind from the existing ones; imposed generally, and there is no net change in gameplay.

Spoiler

Show

Now, you could use this system to create narrower alignment restrictions - such as altering the entire sheaf of Paladin RP restrictions to "Must be Axiomatic Exalted." Or by making Monks "Axiomatic Only."

Or you can make things less restrictive - "Barbarians/Bards cannot be Axiomatic" for example.

Still, even in these cases, I don't know if the lines between Good and Exalted are clear enough to reduce alignment arguments. With Good/Evil, you know that killing Innocents is Not Good and making actual sacrifices to protect Innocents is Not Evil. But how many times do you have to lie before you switch from Exalted to Good? Where is the dividing line - or is it just a tally of sorts? Is there any act that a Good person could do that an Exalted could never do?

Now, take the example of the "Action Alignment" system. Although I haven't seen it, you could use this principle as a genuine third axis by letting it permit action/inaction in areas that would otherwise violate the alignment rules.

Spoiler

Show

Let's posit one as follows:

Spoiler

Show

Active characters believe that doing something constructive now is always better than doing the right thing an hour later. An Active character is proactive in dealing with situations, always taking action on whatever information is currently available.

Active characters take charge and get things done, but they can also behave recklessly.

Passive characters believe in measuring twice and cutting once. A Passive character will not act until all necessary information has been collected and considered and will advocate delay if there is any doubt as to the correctness of a course of action.

Passive characters are thoughtful and careful in their activity, but they can also allow events to get away from them while they cogitate.

Neutral characters act when action is called for, and delay when they can afford to.

On one hand, this intrudes on the secondary characteristics of Lawful/Chaos; but, importantly, Active/Passive deals only with a secondary characteristic of the L/C Axis - the L/C Axis retains its meaning even with the introduction of a A/P Axis. Furthermore, it creates a clear distinction between the poles - an Active Good character will leap forward to defend the peasant from the angry mob while a Passive Good character will first try to figure out what is going on before doing anything. Note that, under the Nine Alignment System, it would be hard to justify a Good character doing anything but stopping the angry mob - an apparently innocent life is about to be taken - but a Passive Good character could rely upon his Passive alignment to justify being slow to act. Likewise, an Active Good character could use his Active alignment to justify cracking a few heads together to settle down the mob, even though such violence cannot be said to "respect life."

Thoughts?

[sonofzeal]

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.

It's different because "Neutral", under this system, is a narrower category than it was under the original.

Under the old system, someone strongly Lawful was "Lawful", and someone strongly Neutral was "Neutral", and someone mildly Lawful and mildly Neutral was.... undefined. Borderline. Could go either way. If 0% is Chaos and 100% is Law and 50% is Neutral, then the chart would look something like this...

0% to 33% = Chaotic
33% to 66% = Neutral
66% to 100% = Lawful

Now, with the change, the system looks like....

0% to 20% = Anarchic
20% to 40% = Chaotic
40% to 60% = Neutral
60% to 80% = Lawful
80% to 100% = Axiomatic

...with the actual population being normally distributed across both axis (a "bell curve", for the non stats people). In other words, I'm not subdividing Law and Chaos; my intention is to redefine the whole system, cut the whole pie into narrower slices. Some people who would have been "Neutral" before will now be in the milder Core categories, since they are milder than their PHB counterparts. Evil, specifically, partially occupies a space that many might have called "Neutral" before.

I believe that many bigots and hypocrites believe themselves to be "good". That's probably not what you mean by "exalted".

Agreed. The quotes are just to try to get the idea across (and, like I said, many Neutral people believe they're Good). If you have a better suggestion, that's appreciated.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's different because "Neutral", under this system, is a narrower category than it was under the original.

Under the old system, someone strongly Lawful was "Lawful", and someone strongly Neutral was "Neutral", and someone mildly Lawful and mildly Neutral was.... undefined. Borderline. Could go either way.

But that's not so. There are no "undefined" characters - merely characters that one does not know enough about.

Alignment is not something you're supposed to reverse-engineer; it's one of the standard bits of information you put in the stat block of any character in a game. It sets the parameters for gameplay - you start within the broad area of "Lawful Good" and define yourself from there. This is why the Nine Alignment categories are so broad - you're not supposed to use it as a taxonomic system for labeling existing personas; it's a starting point, not an endpoint.

It's a fun thought experiment to assign Alignments to real life (or fictional) people, but that's obviously not how Alignment is supposed to be use. This is why when you ask someone "What alignment is the guy who beats his wife but loves his mother" they'll respond "need more information" - two datapoints do nothing to describe the broad scope that an Alignment covers.

Consequently, this is why Alignment changes were so heavily discouraged - a "changed" alignment is the result of poor roleplaying, not poor initial labeling. Likewise, this is why Alignment changes are only prescribed in the event of obvious changes in RP, not for minor acts. Paladins are a special case because they usually Fall for violating their separate Paladin Code - not for changing from LG.

* * *

Now, I'm not saying your system won't work, but I question as to whether it'll really fix any of the problems you're seeking to resolve. Unless you are playing with people who both (A) have trouble understanding the difference between "Good" and "Evil" & "Law" and "Chaos" and (B) have no trouble distinguishing between "Axiomatic" and "Lawful" & "Exalted" and "Good," then the system is either redundant (if not-A) or equally confusing (if not-B) for your players. Add in the mechanical headaches of tweaking the alignment-based spells, and I question whether anyone will really be better off.

...that's a good question actually - what problems, exactly, is your system trying to address and how does it do that? I know you laid it out before, but maybe if you can reduce it into line-by-line comparisons, it'll be clearer (to me, at least )

[Mike_G]

To follow in the same vein as Oracle Hunter, I think we need to ask "What, exactly, are you trying to fix?"

Having a gradation between mild and extreme versions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos does fix the Detect Evil issue a bit, so the surly peasant and the serial killer/cultist of Vecna don't ping the same.

I think it actually waters down the idea that Paladins should be held to a higher standard by allowing them to stay in the Sorta Committed category of LG.

I don't think it does much for Roleplaying, honestly. It doesn't fix the issues that those of us who hate the black and white absolute morality idea have.

[sonofzeal]

...that's a good question actually - what problems, exactly, is your system trying to address and how does it do that? I know you laid it out before, but maybe if you can reduce it into line-by-line comparisons, it'll be clearer (to me, at least )

A few problems, really.

1) Poor official definitions. The PHB only gives a few lines about each, and those lines carry little information beyond the level of cliche. "Good" and "Evil" are fairly easy to understand, at least in a sort of narrow cliche level that doesn't really address the actual ethical variation of most game worlds, but "Law" and "Chaos" don't even get that far. There's all sorts of disagreements about what it actually means to be "Neutral" as opposed to "Evil", or what "Lawful" means. Is Batman Lawful because he lives by a code and is very dedicated and organized and self-controlled, or is he Chaotic because he breaks the law with impunity and answers to no-one and often tries to change the system? It's not merely that they system lacks a certain expressive power (any abstraction does), it's that nobody's exactly sure what the terms actually mean. A few sentences in the PHB are not going to resolve this issue satisfactorily.

The issue this causes is that different people might mean things in different ways. I could say my character is "Neutral" because he's self-interested while the DM firmly interprets his actions as "Evil". I could say my character is "Chaotic" because he disagrees with the government, while the DM claims he's Lawful because he's organized and structured and self-controlled. When people mean different things by the same terms, it causes disagreements and bad feelings around the table. Nobody likes to be told that they're "playing their alignment wrong", but oftentimes that's what happens. I've seen it myself, both as player and as DM.

The solution was to provide an alternate set of definitions, that clarify the each category. The first thing to do was to, effectively, scrap the original categories. They're maintained in spirit, but mean something slightly different now. They also provide much more actual information on what people in these categories are like, take much more care in defining the terms involved, and generally do the best job I could manage of making each category unambiguous. I'm still working on Law/Chaos a bit, but I'm very happy with Good/Evil here.


2) Poor official boundaries. Okay, so let's say we all know what "Evil" is, and what "Neutral" is. Where, then, is the boundary? What is the difference between "Good with Neutral tendancies" and "Neutral with Good tendancies"? A big problem here is that the categories are so broad that the boundaries are pretty sudden. Since "Good" is the category of Unicorns and Paladins and Angels, and Neutral is the category of Formians and Lizardfolk and animals, the difference between the two is rather stark.

The issue is that players must choose one. A player with a character who is somewhat good but not strongly so might have difficulty placing them in either category. The game as written forces a choice that may not accurately reflect the character, no matter which option the player goes with.

The solution was to create levels of gradation. By putting intermediary levels in, it's now an easier choice to make. The difference between "Neutral" and "Good" is smaller now (since Good now excludes "Exalted" and is only for the moderately good), and hopefully small enough that choosing between them is unlikely to be arduous. It's still possible that someone falls halfway between "pretty neutral" and "moderately good", and that the choice is non-obvious, but it should be an easier choice than it was between the more harshly-defined categories of the official system.

[Oracle_Hunter]

1) Poor official definitions. The PHB only gives a few lines about each, and those lines carry little information beyond the level of cliche.

Let's look at those lines for a second

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

. . .

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

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.

This doesn't carry information for you? It's enough for me to answer the Batman question, anyhow:

Is Batman Lawful because he lives by a code and is very dedicated and organized and self-controlled, or is he Chaotic because he breaks the law with impunity and answers to no-one and often tries to change the system?

Does Batman respect authority or honor tradition? Not generally - his M.O. consists of repeatedly breaking the law and dispensing rough justice to "criminals" outside of the legal protections of the judicial system. Does he follow his conscience, resent being told what to do, and keep promises only when he feels like it?

He's Chaotic. Fullstop.

Consequently, this is the answer to objection #2 - the Nine Alignments actually provide clear divisions between G/E and L/C.

Do you destroy or debase innocent life? Evil.
Do you protect innocent life instead? Good.
Do you neither destroy/debase innocent life, but make no special effort to protect it? Neutral.

Do you follow The Law, or Your Heart, in important matters?
If "The Law," then Lawful
If "Your Heart," then Chaotic
If "Whatever I can get away with" then Neutral.

The sparse verbiage not quoted here is helpful in teasing out the nuances of the Alignments, but the bright lines are not that hard to see - when you consider the text.

* * *

The issue is that players must choose one. A player with a character who is somewhat good but not strongly so might have difficulty placing them in either category. The game as written forces a choice that may not accurately reflect the character, no matter which option the player goes with.

The solution was to create levels of gradation. By putting intermediary levels in, it's now an easier choice to make. The difference between "Neutral" and "Good" is smaller now (since Good now excludes "Exalted" and is only for the moderately good), and hopefully small enough that choosing between them is unlikely to be arduous. It's still possible that someone falls halfway between "pretty neutral" and "moderately good", and that the choice is non-obvious, but it should be an easier choice than it was between the more harshly-defined categories of the official system.

This is a laudable goal, but if this is what you wanted to do, you drew the lines wrong. Rather than split the extremes, you should have split the middle.

Neutral should now be 6 categories:

- Leaning Good
- Leaning Evil
- Leaning Chaotic
- Leaning Lawful
- Unaligned (G/E)
- Unaligned (L/C)

People who make a stand, make a stand; nobody who places themselves as Good is going to be confused with someone who is Evil or Neutral - they've picked their principles, and are sticking to it. However, those who aren't dedicated may experience that ambivalence you describe - and they should not be placed in the same categories as people dedicated to a particular moral viewpoint.

There is little point in a Fantasy Universe to dwell on the "maybes" - either you're fighting against the BBEG or you're for him. This is why it is Smite Evil instead of Smite Creep. After all, why bother crafting a spell that will only Smite people with unpaid parking tickets when there's anarchist necromancers turning grandma into a giant flaming skeleton?

If you want to lower the decision cost as you said, then just split up the middle so that people can get the good feeling of saying they're "kinda Good" without actually committing to a moral framework. Heck, it sounds like that's the crowd you're really aiming at anyhow - and the best thing is you don't have to fiddle with Magical Alignment much.

Spoiler

Show

"Leaners" detect as minor versions of their alignment and suffer no mechanical effects from buffs/banes that target their alignment. However, Leaners will "feel good" in buff zones and "feel bad" in bane zones. If a power already affects Neutrals, then Leaning will give a save bonus/penalty depending on how you Lean.

[sonofzeal]

This doesn't carry information for you? It's enough for me to answer the Batman question, anyhow:

Does Batman respect authority or honor tradition? Not generally - his M.O. consists of repeatedly breaking the law and dispensing rough justice to "criminals" outside of the legal protections of the judicial system. Does he follow his conscience, resent being told what to do, and keep promises only when he feels like it?

He's Chaotic. Fullstop.

Chaotic: "implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." How many of those things fit Batman, and how many flat out contradict the character as normally understood?

Neutral: "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Does that sound anything remotely like Batman at any point?

Batman falls solidly outside all three definitions given. You have to do some serious selective reading in your interpretation to make him line up with any of them.

This is a laudable goal, but if this is what you wanted to do, you drew the lines wrong. Rather than split the extremes, you should have split the middle.

Neutral should now be 6 categories:

- Leaning Good
- Leaning Evil
- Leaning Chaotic
- Leaning Lawful
- Unaligned (G/E)
- Unaligned (L/C)

People who make a stand, make a stand; nobody who places themselves as Good is going to be confused with someone who is Evil or Neutral - they've picked their principles, and are sticking to it. However, those who aren't dedicated may experience that ambivalence you describe - and they should not be placed in the same categories as people dedicated to a particular moral viewpoint.

There is little point in a Fantasy Universe to dwell on the "maybes" - either you're fighting against the BBEG or you're for him. This is why it is Smite Evil instead of Smite Creep. After all, why bother crafting a spell that will only Smite people with unpaid parking tickets when there's anarchist necromancers turning grandma into a giant flaming skeleton?

If you want to lower the decision cost as you said, then just split up the middle so that people can get the good feeling of saying they're "kinda Good" without actually committing to a moral framework. Heck, it sounds like that's the crowd you're really aiming at anyhow - and the best thing is you don't have to fiddle with Magical Alignment much.

Spoiler

Show

"Leaners" detect as minor versions of their alignment and suffer no mechanical effects from buffs/banes that target their alignment. However, Leaners will "feel good" in buff zones and "feel bad" in bane zones. If a power already affects Neutrals, then Leaning will give a save bonus/penalty depending on how you Lean.

Leaners is a good way too, and I've used them in a past. I have a LE-leaning-LN rogue, and NN-leaning-CE artificer. However, I've never figured out a good method of notating that.

Also, I think you're perhaps playing a slightly different game than me (not a bad thing, just an observation). Many of my campaigns, especially those most tied up with alignments, are heavy-RP games where there is a gray zone between being for or against the BBEG. There's degrees of commitment to the cause, different motives for performing certain actions, and different end goals in mind. A few of the party have picked solid ethical stances (under my system, an AxE healer and a LV Sorcerer), but most muddle around the middle somewhere, off on the chaotic side of the spectrum, and a few were recently put in a point of having to realize that they weren't as "good" as they thought they were. In this campaign there's plenty of what you call "maybes". In a campaign where devils are the main opponent, we have at least three PCs who've willingly signed faustian contracts, and one more who's actually pretty much become a devil himself. If the BBEG showed up right now, it would get extremely confusing and there'd be betrayals and counter-betrayals on both sides.

All that said, hey, yeah, "leanings" make a nice alternative. Feel free to use it if you find it works better for you than this. I'd still recommend my expanded definitions if you run into disagreement, but that's just me.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Chaotic: "implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." How many of those things fit Batman, and how many flat out contradict the character as normally understood?

Neutral: "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Does that sound anything remotely like Batman at any point?

Batman falls solidly outside all three definitions given. You have to do some serious selective reading in your interpretation to make him line up with any of them.

You're missing the emphasis in those quotes.

Implies and can are not the same as imperatives used in the sections I quoted. If they carried the same weight, then someone who is Good would always have to be altruistic, caring of the sensitivities of others, and unwilling to take a life. Obviously this is not the intent of the writers; such an assumption would create incredibly narrow Alignment categories and be a radical departure from the Nine Alignments System under TSR.

Also: I'd say Batman is all about freedom, adaptability, flexibility and being resentful of legitimate authority. And certainly, when he does fail it is because of recklessness and a hostility to being responsible to anyone but himself. But that's just me.

* * *

As for your own games - I would heavily suggest against using the Exalted/Good split if you expect your Good PCs to not oppose the BBEG. It's a bit odd for Paladins to say "Well, the Lord Necromancer is bad, but at least he makes the Magic Trains run on time." Nor should you use "lean" as a hybrid; calling someone "LG leaning NG" is begging for confused looks from your PCs. However, "Good, Leaning Lawful" provides a clear boundary - he's solidly Good, but is a bit stiffer about rules and regulation than the other NGs hanging around.

That said, you sound like you're running a mostly-Evil game. Signing deals with the Devil is just asking for a big ol' Evil stamp on your forehead - if you don't end up eating babies as a result, you're dealing with some pretty lame Devils. No problem with running an Evil game, but it's hard to argue you're using Alignment in the Good vs. Evil sense you'd see in classic Heroic Fantasy.

[sonofzeal]

You're missing the emphasis in those quotes.

Implies and can are not the same as imperatives used in the sections I quoted. If they carried the same weight, then someone who is Good would always have to be altruistic, caring of the sensitivities of others, and unwilling to take a life. Obviously this is not the intent of the writers; such an assumption would create incredibly narrow Alignment categories and be a radical departure from the Nine Alignments System under TSR.

Also: I'd say Batman is all about freedom, adaptability, flexibility and being resentful of legitimate authority. And certainly, when he does fail it is because of recklessness and a hostility to being responsible to anyone but himself. But that's just me.

Well, let's go from the top then.

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

Batman DOES tell the truth
Batman DOES keep his word
Batman does NOT respect authority
Batman does NOT honor tradition
Batman DOES judge those who fall short of their duties.

I'm not a batman expert, but I really can't think of a time when he's lied or broken promises, and he's very much the judgmental sort. You're free to disagree, but that's my understanding of the character. And given that, I'd have to do selective reading to make things line up cleanly.



Let's take a different example. I had a lizardfolk rogue once, Y'G. Y'G's tribe was cannibalistic (by which I mean they eat sentients as part of their normal diet). They're very polite about it and wouldn't do it in mixed company, but it's considered normal and acceptable to them and no dishonour to the dead. Is that then Evil or not?

Same character is an assassin from time to time. Y'G had no qualms whatsoever about killing most adults, and would do so dispassionately and without a hint of regret should it come up in her job. However, under absolutely no circumstances would she endanger the life of a sentient child, and would fight to the death to protect a child or child-like person. Is that evil since she ends some life, or good since she protects some life, or neutral because the two cancel out in some strange way?

You might have answers to these questions (most people, I think, would have an answer). I might have different answers though. My DM might have different answers still. You might argue she's Good by the standards of her tribe (willing to sacrifice herself for children), Evil by human conventions (eating people, killing adults), or Neutral. Even with the "leaning" system, it's awkward. I could write one thing down on my sheet, and later be put in a position where the DM disagrees and demands I change it.

Under my expanded systems she's solidly Evil because she rejects the universal ethical code. The things she does are not wrong to her so she's not Vile, but she's still well outside standard ethical behaviour and doesn't have any problem with that. Since she's categorized cleanly and neatly, we can move on with the game in a smooth and orderly fashion.

As for your own games - I would heavily suggest against using the Exalted/Good split if you expect your Good PCs to not oppose the BBEG. It's a bit odd for Paladins to say "Well, the Lord Necromancer is bad, but at least he makes the Magic Trains run on time." Nor should you use "lean" as a hybrid; calling someone "LG leaning NG" is begging for confused looks from your PCs. However, "Good, Leaning Lawful" provides a clear boundary - he's solidly Good, but is a bit stiffer about rules and regulation than the other NGs hanging around.

That said, you sound like you're running a mostly-Evil game. Signing deals with the Devil is just asking for a big ol' Evil stamp on your forehead - if you don't end up eating babies as a result, you're dealing with some pretty lame Devils. No problem with running an Evil game, but it's hard to argue you're using Alignment in the Good vs. Evil sense you'd see in classic Heroic Fantasy.

We're not really running a mostly-evil game. My AxE healer recently made a deal with the BBEG - five years service, not including actions that violate her vows, for the lives of five friends. A LG character might not have made the same choice, might have let those five die in exchange for the chance to strike back in revenge. Also complicating matters is that the "BBEG" was actually originally supposed to be a PC, and only really became an official badguy when other players triggered a massive series of events way ahead of the DM's plan. Up until then, my AxE healer had a certain friendly rivalry with the character, and still has hope for his redemption. So when he showed up with hostages, she negotiated. That might be considered a minor evil act, but it's allowable under my definition of Exalted. She may be in a position of having to slide down to Good or worse later, but we'll see. By calling her Exalted in the first place though, I gave a hint as to what sort of decision she might make there.


As to necromancers and trains, let's say that evilness profits a bit every time people use his trains, but that it's the fastest way for the heroes to get where they need to be to actually stop the BBEG. An Exalted character would resist using the trains and try to find some other way if possible, but might be convinced if it really is necessary. A Good character might not be entirely comfortable but would be more likely to take it as a simple matter of the greater good. A Neutral character wouldn't be bothered so much. And it wouldn't even register as a concern on an Evil character, even after pointed out to them. A Vile character might be giddily riding trains all day and encouraging others to do the same, even when it isn't the best way.

Or, lets say the BBEG has hostages, maybe he's possessing one of their friends. How willing would each one be to keep fighting if someone innocent might die?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, let's go from the top then.

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

Batman DOES tell the truth
Batman DOES keep his word
Batman does NOT respect authority
Batman does NOT honor tradition
Batman DOES judge those who fall short of their duties.

I'm not a batman expert, but I really can't think of a time when he's lied or broken promises, and he's very much the judgmental sort. You're free to disagree, but that's my understanding of the character. And given that, I'd have to do selective reading to make things line up cleanly.

Batman Discussion

Spoiler

Show

Batman does not tell the truth, nor does he keep his word, out of duty - he does when he feels like it. Admittedly, Batman doesn't need to break his word a lot (not that he goes around making promises), but he's not going to let some villain go because he promised to.

You're thinking of Superman, the stereotypical LG type. He's constantly letting Lex Luthor and Co. get away because of stupid promises he made.

Like I said - you need more information, not selective reading.

But, like I said, I'm no Batman scholar, so let's deal with your other example:

You might have answers to these questions (most people, I think, would have an answer). I might have different answers though. My DM might have different answers still. You might argue she's Good by the standards of her tribe (willing to sacrifice herself for children), Evil by human conventions (eating people, killing adults), or Neutral. Even with the "leaning" system, it's awkward. I could write one thing down on my sheet, and later be put in a position where the DM disagrees and demands I change it.

Under my expanded systems she's solidly Evil because she rejects the universal ethical code. The things she does are not wrong to her so she's not Vile, but she's still well outside standard ethical behaviour and doesn't have any problem with that. Since she's categorized cleanly and neatly, we can move on with the game in a smooth and orderly fashion.

Well, your DM's arguments are absolutely wrong - relative morality has no place in an objective morality system like the Nine Alignments. Good is protecting Innocents, Evil is killing/degrading them. Neutral is neither killing nor protecting Innocents.

Nor is "moral math" the correct path - we're using words & definitions, not symbolic logic. You fall into a category, or exclude yourself from a category, depending on the most extreme forms of your activity.

So let's look at those categories:

Not Good
(1) Assassination for profit: "respect for life" generally means not taking a life unless absolutely necessary, or for a higher purpose. Money is not a higher purpose.

(2) Killing sentient beings unnecessarily: "respect for sentient beings" is unlikely to be served by putting them in the same category as cattle.

Not Evil
(1) Killing for food: Evil goes out of its way to kill or degrade innocent life. If you are killing just to eat, and not for sport, then you are not Evil.

(2) Eating the dead: Provided you're not desecrating the dead to produce unholy abominations, or otherwise "degrading innocent life" you are not Evil. Eating corpses in a respectful fashion cannot be called "degrading" of the dead.

So what does that make you? Neutral - you're Not Good, and you're Not Evil. Done and done. And it was all figured out by looking at the definitions, not some complicated and sloppy attempt of moral equivalency.

I am also skeptical of your application of your own system:

Spoiler

Show

An Evil person is generally one who completely ignores the ethical standard entirely.

Didn't you say that Y'G did his best to honor the dead as he was eating them, and refused to kill children - and would, indeed protect them at the cost of her own life? Why, I'd say Y'G is Axiomatic:

An Exalted person always does his absolute best to adhere to the objective standard of ethical behaviour, to the best of their understanding.

The highlighted language is key - "to the best of their understanding" just begs for Relativistic interpretations of action. By eating the dead in a ritualistic fashion, Y'G believed she was adhering to the objective standard of ethical behavior of respecting sentient life; by protecting children she believed she was protecting innocents.

Even if you want to say "nah, she really rejected this objective standard" then you run into the problem of people who do Good things, not because of the objective standard, but because they think it is the right thing to do.

This is the main problem with trying to re-write the Alignment System - any attempt to make it more subjective can derail the concept of an objective alignment system entirely. And once you're out of the objective alignment system, adjudicating Alignment-based effects becomes nigh impossible on a consistent basis.

As to necromancers and trains, let's say that evilness profits a bit every time people use his trains, but that it's the fastest way for the heroes to get where they need to be to actually stop the BBEG. An Exalted character would resist using the trains and try to find some other way if possible, but might be convinced if it really is necessary. A Good character might not be entirely comfortable but would be more likely to take it as a simple matter of the greater good. A Neutral character wouldn't be bothered so much. And it wouldn't even register as a concern on an Evil character, even after pointed out to them. A Vile character might be giddily riding trains all day and encouraging others to do the same, even when it isn't the best way.

Or, lets say the BBEG has hostages, maybe he's possessing one of their friends. How willing would each one be to keep fighting if someone innocent might die?

This was actually an allusion to Mussolini - an awful, Evil man who's apologists were famous for saying "well, at least he made the trains run on time." That is to say "sure, he's Evil, but look at the nice things he's done."

Under your system, a Good character (such as a Paladin) could be one of those apologists:

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.

Do you really want a Paladin to be OK with the slaughter of Innocents, so long as the Magic Trains run on time?

Anyhow, your LG healer sounds exactly right - make a bargain under extreme duress to protect Innocents (and allies!) that won't force her to do anything against her Alignment? Heck, that's a no-brainer - what kind of Evil Overlords do you have over there anyhow?

[sonofzeal]

Batman Discussion

Spoiler

Show

Batman does not tell the truth, nor does he keep his word, out of duty - he does when he feels like it. Admittedly, Batman doesn't need to break his word a lot (not that he goes around making promises), but he's not going to let some villain go because he promised to.

You're thinking of Superman, the stereotypical LG type. He's constantly letting Lex Luthor and Co. get away because of stupid promises he made.

Like I said - you need more information, not selective reading.

But, like I said, I'm no Batman scholar, so let's deal with your other example:

Well, we seem to disagree as to who exactly Batman is. About the most dishonest thing I can remember seeing him do was replacing Twoface's coin with one that reliably landed on edge.

Still, if he doesn't lie I'd say he's more Lawful than anything, and you say he lies as is Chaotic. That's rather a telling shift over something that really isn't that big a deal when you think about it.

The point is merely that many characters are either difficult to place, or controversial within a group. The fact that we're even having this argument kind of proves the point.

Well, your DM's arguments are absolutely wrong - relative morality has no place in an objective morality system like the Nine Alignments. Good is protecting Innocents, Evil is killing/degrading them. Neutral is neither killing nor protecting Innocents.

Nor is "moral math" the correct path - we're using words & definitions, not symbolic logic. You fall into a category, or exclude yourself from a category, depending on the most extreme forms of your activity.

So let's look at those categories:

Not Good
(1) Assassination for profit: "respect for life" generally means not taking a life unless absolutely necessary, or for a higher purpose. Money is not a higher purpose.

(2) Killing sentient beings unnecessarily: "respect for sentient beings" is unlikely to be served by putting them in the same category as cattle.

Not Evil
(1) Killing for food: Evil goes out of its way to kill or degrade innocent life. If you are killing just to eat, and not for sport, then you are not Evil.

(2) Eating the dead: Provided you're not desecrating the dead to produce unholy abominations, or otherwise "degrading innocent life" you are not Evil. Eating corpses in a respectful fashion cannot be called "degrading" of the dead.

So what does that make you? Neutral - you're Not Good, and you're Not Evil. Done and done. And it was all figured out by looking at the definitions, not some complicated and sloppy attempt of moral equivalency.

Again, the point was that different people would disagree. You have your own opinion, you're prefectly entitled to it, and you may in fact be right. However, the person across from you at the table might see it differently.

The issue in this case is someone who manifestly VALUES some life (children) and DEVALUES other (adults). This is going to result in difficulty either way, as you can probably see. I could put the same character through two different campaigns, and have the party convinced she's Good in one and Evil in the other, depending on what came up.

Personally, when I made the character, I put "LE" down on the sheet. She's an assassin for hire, and has absolutely no ethical qualms about her job, even if she's killing "innocents". She works for evil people, doing evil things, and goes home each night satisfied in a job well done. On further consideration, Neutral made a lot of sense too, so I talked with the DM about it and I don't think we ever reached a consensus

Anyway, point is - not cut and dry, caused some questions for us that we didn't have definitive answers for.

The highlighted language is key - "to the best of their understanding" just begs for Relativistic interpretations of action.

Ah, my apologies, my meaning wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the person might not understand the code (which is possible, but beside the point). I meant that the person might not understand the situation. If you think someone's coming to kill you, and they're really just reaching for a coin purse, I don't think you should take an alignment hit for that. You might still go to jail, but that's a different issue.

I should rewrite that to be more clear. I've also got a major reformat to the "Law" section coming too, which may change some significant points. *ponders*

This was actually an allusion to Mussolini - an awful, Evil man who's apologists were famous for saying "well, at least he made the trains run on time." That is to say "sure, he's Evil, but look at the nice things he's done."

Under your system, a Good character (such as a Paladin) could be one of those apologists:

Do you really want a Paladin to be OK with the slaughter of Innocents, so long as the Magic Trains run on time?

Anyhow, your LG healer sounds exactly right - make a bargain under extreme duress to protect Innocents (and allies!) that won't force her to do anything against her Alignment? Heck, that's a no-brainer - what kind of Evil Overlords do you have over there anyhow?

I'm aware of Mussolini and the trains. Actually, my brain immediately went to this horrible pun.

Anyway, a "Good" character is still one who strives to uphold the ethical code, they're just more human about. Condoning atrocities for the sake of convenience is not what a Good person should be doing. Even a Neutral person, with their nodding appreciation for the ethical standard, shouldn't be entirely comfortable with that (unless the trains running on time is a significant part of their life).

A Good person is someone who generally tries to be Exalted. When I say he considers his wellbeing first, what I mean is he's unlikely to risk poverty, grievous physical injury, or significant emotional loss. He's the type of person who might really want to stand up to bullies, but be too afraid of getting beaten up or ostracized to really go for it. By contrast, an Exalted person would probably go right in there anyway, and a Neutral person might fantasize about swooping in to save the day but wouldn't seriously consider it.



As a side note, I think "Mussolini made the trains run on time" is about more than just the trains, it's a reference to producing an ordered and safe society. Apologists for him might be those who value stability over liberty. They would most likely be a subset of who respect authority strongly, and are Neutral or less on the ethical axis. Such people, of course, never think the government bloodhounds would come for them, but could be worried stiff about a burglar in the night or about missing that important interview.

[megabyter5]

WOAH!


...I had an idea VERY MUCH like that, once. I even used the same terms for the expanded alignments (taken, of course, from BoED, BoVD, and the names of the lawful/chaotic weapon enhancements though, so they were the obvious ones).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Again, the point was that different people would disagree. You have your own opinion, you're prefectly entitled to it, and you may in fact be right. However, the person across from you at the table might see it differently.

This is always a troubling response to hear when discussing an objective alignment system. What good is it to call something objective if "YMMV" is the standard response?

This is why I always argue from text - it's the only way you can argue when discussing objective topics. For example, your point of variable valuations of life has no bearing on Good/Evil; there's not a scrap of text to support this as a valid criteria for aligning someone on the Good/Evil axis. At best, you can argue someone that values their own lives over the lives of others is Evil - but even there, only at an extreme point. Furthermore, since everyone places different values on life in D&D, it's hard to use proof of relative values as any sort of argument regarding alignment.

Case in point: if you held all lives to be equal, you would never fight in self-defense. After all, if someone's going to die, who is to say he should die rather than you?

Ah, my apologies, my meaning wasn't clear. I didn't mean that the person might not understand the code (which is possible, but beside the point). I meant that the person might not understand the situation. If you think someone's coming to kill you, and they're really just reaching for a coin purse, I don't think you should take an alignment hit for that. You might still go to jail, but that's a different issue.

I should rewrite that to be more clear. I've also got a major reformat to the "Law" section coming too, which may change some significant points. *ponders*

Particularly if your aim is to resolve ambiguities in the Nine Alignment System, this is key. Your current array is filled with Relativist language that makes drawing even harder than under the original system - how can you distinguish between Good and Neutral if both make "good faith efforts" to be Good? How lazy, exactly, do you have to be to fall from Good to Neutral?

Personally, if I were going to go about revising this system, I'd ask myself this very question: what is one act that distinguishes between the differing categories. Under the Nine Alignment System, there's one for each Axis:

G/E: Behavior towards Innocents
- Good = Protect
- Evil = Kill
- Neutral = Neither Kill nor Protect

L/C: Attitude towards Authority
- Lawful = Reverent
- Chaotic = Irreverent
- Neutral = Neither reverent nor irreverent

Can you make a similar litmus test for your system? If not, you should think up one.

[DabblerWizard]

I approve of your expanded alignment system, Sonofzeal.

I've never been terribly impressed with alignments in 3.5, and even less impressed with the 4.0 version.

I might have approved of the 3x alignment system if they had provided something similar to what you've been describing the past few days.

Semantically augmenting the old alignments, and expanding the system to accommodate new extremes, seem to be making an agreeable difference in how I understand and appreciate the alignment system.

The system is still disagreeable because it circumvents the more difficult (but informative) aspects of moral theory by focusing on the end-game labels attached to behavior. In other words, they ignore discussion about intentionality and outcome, and simply jump to "rightness" and "wrongness" in so many words. The Lawful-Chaotic axis is especially uninformative and prone to equivocal interpretations because of the differences between personal, community, and universal "rules".

There's no way WOTC is going to say: see J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism, Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, and Hurthouse's On Virtue Ethics, but I can dream.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The system is still disagreeable because it circumvents the more difficult (but informative) aspects of moral theory by focusing on the end-game labels attached to behavior. In other words, they ignore discussion about intentionality and outcome, and simply jump to "rightness" and "wrongness" in so many words. The Lawful-Chaotic axis is especially uninformative and prone to equivocal interpretations because of the differences between personal, community, and universal "rules".

Sir, you sound like an educated man, but why are you confusing Subjective and Objective Alignment?

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

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.

Nowhere in this description does it rely on "following the rules" - it merely notes that Lawful types respect authority and honor traditions, while Chaotics disrespect authority ("resent being told what to do") and dishonor traditions ("favor new ideas over tradition").

Isn't that sufficient? A Lawful character will always give authority figures the respect their position demands and pay respect to local traditions - even if they do not bow to said authority or follow the traditions. There is a reason that the description does not say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, blindly obey authority, follow tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

How is this uninformative, vis-a-vis "the differences between personal, community, and universal rules?"

Likewise, I'm surprised that you wouldn't find having an objective moral system more demanding than a subjective system. Any clever person can justify their actions in a Subjective system, but in an Objective system you have to deal with the Letter of the Rules - which forces choices that one cannot equivocate around. Heck, I've seen more moral quandaries in D&D than in an alignment-less (but supposedly morality-based) system like oWoD Vampire.

[DabblerWizard]

Sir, you sound like an educated man, but why are you confusing Subjective and Objective Alignment?

20 somethings should never be called sir. It makes them feel insecure about their age if they still want to feel young-ish.

I'm not familiar with subjective and objective alignment in gamer terms. Is it simply the difference between alignment as perceived and alignment as it actually is?

Nowhere in this description does it rely on "following the rules" - it merely notes that Lawful types respect authority and honor traditions, while Chaotics disrespect authority ("resent being told what to do") and dishonor traditions ("favor new ideas over tradition").

Isn't that sufficient? A Lawful character will always give authority figures the respect their position demands and pay respect to local traditions - even if they do not bow to said authority or follow the traditions. There is a reason that the description does not say "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, blindly obey authority, follow tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Applying an ethical compass to a character involves more than checking whether they adhere to a few qualities.

I'm concerned with the system's inability to account for ethical nuance, because (1) it seems to ignore intent (and largely ignores talk about the intricacies involved with outcome), and (2) it simply depends upon a few short sentences referencing qualities, and expects these statements to be adequate explanations for moral theory.

Here's a classic example that suggests that outcome isn't sufficient to judge the rightness of a person's actions. A man decides to steal a woman's purse. He goes up to her, reaches for it, but suddenly pulls away when he seems a police officer come into view. Neither the woman nor the police officer are any wiser. No purse is stolen; no one is harmed.

Let's say that this man just sucks at stealing, but has tried to steal many times. Outcome would suggest that this man is "lawful", since he has never actually stolen from anyone, but it seems wrong to ignore his clearly unlawful intentions.

I'm not convinced that respect and honor are the key qualities necessary in a lawful person. Shouldn't this person uphold laws, let's say? But to what end? Even if the laws are malevolent? Even if the government is in anarchy and no new laws have come into place? - It's not clear where a person should become "chaotic" or "neutral" in this regard.

How is this uninformative, vis-a-vis "the differences between personal, community, and universal rules?"

Some philosophers and psychologists have suggested that universal laws may be more important to uphold than federal or state laws. (See: Kohlberg's moral stages) Would such a person be unlawful just because they ignore any local law that contradicts their sense for universal law? Maybe they should still be considered lawful. This is an ambiguous situation.

Likewise, I'm surprised that you wouldn't find having an objective moral system more demanding than a subjective system. Any clever person can justify their actions in a Subjective system, but in an Objective system you have to deal with the Letter of the Rules - which forces choices that one cannot equivocate around. Heck, I've seen more moral quandaries in D&D than in an alignment-less (but supposedly morality-based) system like oWoD Vampire.

See my response above concerning objective and subjective alignment systems.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm not familiar with subjective and objective alignment in gamer terms. Is it simply the difference between alignment as perceived and alignment as it actually is?

Ah, this is indeed the central problem.

Spoiler

Show

An Objective Morality System is one where Morality (what is "Good" and "Evil") is defined in absolute terms ("killing innocents is Evil; protecting innocents is Good"). A Subjective Morality System is one where "Good" and "Evil" is defined in relative terms ("killing is Good or Evil depending on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual"). IRL we usually deal with Subjective morality - philosophers like Kant no longer represent the mainstream here; ethical decisions are rarely resolved against a universal moral framework.

In D&D, Good and Evil have Objective meanings:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

If you "debase or destroy innocent life," regardless of intent, you are doing an Evil act. Even if you believe that the orphans you are murdering are actually demons, the act is still Evil. Likewise, if you do not protect innocent life, you cannot be Good - the nice guy down the street who stands mute while the orphans get murdered is not Good; even if he couldn't stop the murderer he should have attempted to protect them to the best extent he could.

This is the core of Good and Evil. There are additional words describing secondary traits of Good and Evil people, but they are phrased in more permissive language ("implies"). Regardless of what you think "Good and Evil" mean, this is the definition; the system is Objective.

Likewise, Law and Chaos have Objective meanings:

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

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.

Note that there is no reference to the supremacy or hierarchy of laws - what matters is your general attitude towards truth, honor, authority, and tradition. Multiple lawful characters can argue about what law should be followed at any given time, but all of them agree that some law, based in tradition or other authority, should be followed. Nor do they reject authority or tradition out of hand - they respect them.

So, as you can see, Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention. Each term means exactly what it says - no more, no less.

For a full text of the Alignment system, click here.

EDIT:
Regarding your thought experiment.

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

It is a fallacy to equate alignment with outcome - alignment is not a sum of outcomes, but a roadmap used to guide decision making. In play, it often appears to be a sum of outcomes because it is impossible to read a player's mind - the DM can only judge by actions, and may adjust alignment along the principle of Revealed Preference.

In essence, a PC whose sheet reads "Lawful Good" but continually flouts authority and follows no rules but his own is not, and never was "Lawful Good" - his "general morals and personal attitudes" are, and always have been, Chaotic. The DM then steps in to correct a labeling error.

[sonofzeal]

This is always a troubling response to hear when discussing an objective alignment system. What good is it to call something objective if "YMMV" is the standard response?

This is why I always argue from text - it's the only way you can argue when discussing objective topics. For example, your point of variable valuations of life has no bearing on Good/Evil; there's not a scrap of text to support this as a valid criteria for aligning someone on the Good/Evil axis. At best, you can argue someone that values their own lives over the lives of others is Evil - but even there, only at an extreme point. Furthermore, since everyone places different values on life in D&D, it's hard to use proof of relative values as any sort of argument regarding alignment.

Case in point: if you held all lives to be equal, you would never fight in self-defense. After all, if someone's going to die, who is to say he should die rather than you?

Of course you have to argue from the text when possible. However, I would disagree that the text is as clear as you seem to think it is. Certainly the things you quote from it are there, but they're right beside other things that might suggest different answers.

Take, for example, law. "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties." You seem to read that so only the third point actually matters (which, by the way, is another entirely valid solution to the issue, and does solve the problem if you get others to accept that too). Someone else might focus exclusively on the first two. Someone else might think the fifth was key.


This thread is an excellent example of the confusion people have. It's okay for you to say that you understand it perfectly and everyone else is wrong, but when that many people disagree, the system is flawed, fullstop. Either it contradicts itself, or doesn't provide enough clarification, or both.

Particularly if your aim is to resolve ambiguities in the Nine Alignment System, this is key. Your current array is filled with Relativist language that makes drawing even harder than under the original system - how can you distinguish between Good and Neutral if both make "good faith efforts" to be Good? How lazy, exactly, do you have to be to fall from Good to Neutral?

Personally, if I were going to go about revising this system, I'd ask myself this very question: what is one act that distinguishes between the differing categories. Under the Nine Alignment System, there's one for each Axis:

G/E: Behavior towards Innocents
- Good = Protect
- Evil = Kill
- Neutral = Neither Kill nor Protect

L/C: Attitude towards Authority
- Lawful = Reverent
- Chaotic = Irreverent
- Neutral = Neither reverent nor irreverent

Can you make a similar litmus test for your system? If not, you should think up one.

Again, you're doing selective reading from the text if you want to break it down that. However..

Exalted = follows Conscience absolutely
Good = follows Conscience decently
Neutral = follows Conscience weakly
Evil = doesn't follow Conscience at all
Vile = works against Conscience

("Conscience" is, of course, a short form for "the universal objective ethical system by which goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world". I thought the former was a bit snappier.)

Law/Chaos have their own defined test already, which is currently under revision. It should be fixed up at some point today. It's not nearly as simple as yours, but also tries to express a bit more closely how the term often actually gets used.




Oh, and text on objective/subjective has been cleaned up to make it a bit clearer in the Exalted example. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's not that the language is irrelevant - it's that it's less relevant in this case. Words have meanings.

Respect - deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

Honor: to hold in honor or high respect

This is not the same as an imperative (a command) such as "tell the truth" or "keep their word.

I fear I am becoming shrill on this point, but I thought I'd make one last effort for clarity. It does not take any special ability to discern the alignment of any character under the Nine Alignment System - you merely have to read the alignment descriptions (essential in an Objective Moral System) and then gather enough information.

Analysis of the linked thread:

Spoiler

Show

He's a talented warrior who travels the world to seek and combat the forces of evil. If one were to ask him, that would literally be his stated goal- "To fight the forces of evil."

He doesn't do this out of any moral or ethical obligation, nor does he really expect to be able to be successful in much of anything more than a temporary, localized scale- his stated goal is simply too vast to be accomplished by a single person (unless that person's an epic level caster, but that's not the point.)

He doesn't do it to "make the world a better place" either. It's actually mostly an excuse to travel and look for new challenges. He doesn't try to dominate the landscape or murder everyone or rob the countryside blind because there's no challenege in it. At least, not enough to make it worth the hassle. Plus, people tend to like heroes better than they like villians anyway.

Not that he's completely altruistic, either. He doesn't like to exploit people, but he won't trek halfway accross the country to pass out blankets to people in the middle of a blizzard either. He'll rescue a village being threatened by bandits because it'll probably involve a fight, but any reward aside from an opportunity to find more people to fight is pretty much secondary, unless he's in need of money for traveling or a new sword or something. Most of the time he'd just ask for people to spread his name and send any more such jobs his way. If he fails and the entire town is slaughtered by bandits, he'd look for and help any survivors, but i wouldn't weight too heavily on is conscience. He'd be frustrated with himself for being unable to meet a challenge, but the loss of life wouldn't weigh heavily on his mind. The world's a dangerous place, and the possibility of dying violently is just another facet of life that happens every day.

He doesn't enjoy murdering people- he beleives in the warrior's code and won't strike down someone who's defenseless (unless he or an ally put them in that state during a fight) or unwilling to defend themselves, and he'll accept an enemy's surrender (unless it's the second time they've surrendered, after the first being a trick to get him to let his guard down.)

Possibly Lawful, certainly Neutral.

Why?
(1) Is his aim to protect innocents? No - his aim is to garner fame and fortune; if there's no glory in it, he won't do it. NOT GOOD.
(2) Does he kill innocents? No - it's part of his warrior code not to strike the defenseless. NOT EVIL.

If NOT GOOD and NOT EVIL, then NEUTRAL

There is insufficient information regarding his L/C Axis. He has a strict code, so that means he doesn't just "do what he promises to do if he feels like it" - presumably. Without any further information, I'd just say Neutral, since he doesn't seem to have any particular respect for established authority or laws - he just does it because it's the easiest thing to do.

The relevant text:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect or authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

So far I haven't actually seen you respond directly to any of my alignment analysis - at least not by referring to the text. I strongly suspect that you actually want to use a subjective alignment system but, for some reason, you like the veneer of the objective alignment system.

I further suspect the reason why is that you like having Holy and Unholy forces - to that end I suggest scrapping the alignment system entirely for your games (at least as a mechanical effect) and instead substituting the following:

- Outsiders are all either Holy or Unholy.
They can also be Lawful or Chaotic if you want to keep this element in your game.

- Mortals can be consecrated to possess one of these auras. Otherwise, mortals count, for all intents and purposes, as Neutral.
This allows people to consciously align themselves with a particular ethos; no more worrying about partial modifiers for the mooks who wander the world. Nor do you worry about pickpockets identifying as Evil or whatnot.

All in all, I think this will be less invasive than the half strength / full strength system you have going now, while still achieving the same ends.

[DabblerWizard]

An Objective Morality System is one where Morality (what is "Good" and "Evil") is defined in absolute terms ("killing innocents is Evil; protecting innocents is Good").

A Subjective Morality System is one where "Good" and "Evil" is defined in relative terms ("killing is Good or Evil depending on the perceptions and beliefs of the individual").

So, as you can see, Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention. Each term means exactly what it says - no more, no less.

It is a fallacy to equate alignment with outcome - alignment is not a sum of outcomes, but a roadmap used to guide decision making. In play, it often appears to be a sum of outcomes because it is impossible to read a player's mind

A quick forward not relating to the main topic of this post: Kant was nothing if not an absolutist. Link is spoilered.

Spoiler

Show

http://www.socialpc.com/Philosophy/A...elativism.html

Assuming I agree with your assertion that D&D uses an objective moral system, then it is definitely the case that I don't care for the system.

I'm not particularly fond of ethical pluralism, where there are multiple correct answers to any given scenario, even juxtaposed positions. However, there is something to be said in favor of the open mindedness that subjective-leaning models possess, that seems to be lost in absolutely objective moral models.

On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to view the alignment system as absolutist. Perhaps you might view this as superfluous or cursory in its application, but I don't mind shaping the system into something a bit more malleable.

You suggested above that "Alignment does not actually touch on, let alone constrain, the sort of moral and ethical debates you mention". This suggests to me that the alignment system isn't worthy of being considered a moral system at all.

Throwing together a few terms with rigid definitions (assuming I agree with your interpretation in that regard) in hopes that it will simplify categorization, is a pathetic attempt on the part of developers, to construct a system that can judge the behavior of PCs and NPCs alike.

Alignment then, is a faulty road map, if it even still deserves the term. It doesn't judge behavior. It presents a highly simplified list of terms and definitions that are supposed to cover all moral outcomes, which doesn't happen. And sadly, people do use it to assess moral behavior, because it's all they have through the game.

[Edit]

I'm not especially happy with my response to your comments, but I don't see the point of turning a forum into an essay contest.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Assuming I agree with your assertion that D&D uses an objective moral system, then it is definitely the case that I don't care for the system.

This fact, at least, is not seriously disputed. It is impossible to run a game in which you can Smite Evil, but Evil is a Relative term; you either have a game where nobody is Evil (because who defines themselves as Evil?) or where everyone is Evil (because who would define their enemies as Good?). Also, I think the descriptions, with their simple, concrete boundaries, are best construed as objectively defined.

The Role of Alignment

Spoiler

Show

I also think you miss the point of Alignment - it is not a way to live one's life; it is a mechanic for a game, to model the classic Good vs. Evil conflicts you see in Heroic Fantasy since time immemorial. The Nine Alignments System is certainly not designed to be widely applied (and, I think, it would be a poor idea to do so), nor is it a proscriptive system (e.g. it doesn't tell you how to play). Rather, it is a descriptive system - you get to decide how you want to play, and then pick an Alignment that covers you. Some classes have Alignment restrictions; this is just a shorthand for the sort of behavior that is expected from members of that class.

Alignment & Moral Crises

Spoiler

Show

Now, why did I say Alignment has no bearing on the moral crises you seek to address? Because it is not a system that mandates any one personal moral framework; in fact it gives you nine choices. Between, and even within, those choices you can end up with the sort of moral dilemma that you described - as I mentioned, Lawfuls can disagree over what source of authority should govern in a certain situation.

A LG Paladin may advocate the enlightened chivalric code that he lives by, while a LN Wizard may dismiss that code as idealistic and unworkable - choosing instead a more secular code grounded in efficiency. Finally, the LE Aristocrat may point out that while both systems have their benefits, they should take care to keep a check on their underlings - keep the masses under control, so to speak. While the LG and LE characters will likely never find common ground, the LN person could go either way - or he could stick to his guns and drag the other two to the bargaining table for a compromise.

This example comes out of policy, but the same argument can be had over prisoners (the LG wants the murderer tried and, if found guilty, executed - the CG says they have enough evidence and should kill him here), deals with the devil (the LN finds the terms distasteful, but adequate; the CE refuses to bind himself to anyone, God or man) and the like. Heck, two LG can come to blows over whether Law or Good should rule their reasoning.

You may find such a system distasteful - fine, this is why Kant is not popular (N.B. I had attempted to use him as an example of objective morality). However, Zeal's system is either objective (which, on closer analysis, I doubt) - in which case it has the same failings as the Nine Alignment System - or it is subjective. If it is subjective, then it should own up to it - after all, can you ever claim someone has suffered an alignment shift because they "don't follow their conscience enough?" For me, trying to adjudicate that is ten times worse than telling the Paladin who just chopped up a baby that he's Fallen

[DabblerWizard]

It is impossible to run a game in which you can Smite Evil, but Evil is a Relative term; you either have a game where nobody is Evil (because who defines themselves as Evil?) or where everyone is Evil (because who would define their enemies as Good?).

Tales of Wyre

Spoiler

Show

http://www.enworld.org/forum/story-hour/58227-tales-wyre-06-12-09-update.html

is an amazing campaign journal posted on enworld. Much of the story circles around a paladin that has to contend with his deity's decision to completely overhaul their entire religious / moral code, with the paladin as its new paragon. The story uses the D&D 3x system, and yet functions well despite being set in a morally gray world.

Following this story as a guide, along with trusting in my own creativity and logic, I think it's entirely possible to play out a system where good and evil are relative terms. I would agree that it might be challenging, but certainly worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

[hamishspence]

Kant wasn't the only philosopher to have a concept of absolute morality- some others do- even ones who were absolutely opposed to Kant in most respects, such as Rand.

The claim that "subjectivist morality is the mainstream" may be perhaps an overstatement.

On the other hand, one might say "context matters, even in an absolutist morality"

For example, on the use of force- whether it's justified or not can depend on who started it, whether it is being used defensively or offensively, and so on.

[sonofzeal]

This is not the place to debate real-world philosophy. That has a high probability of getting the thread locked. Please take that conversation elsewhere.



This is not the place to debate objectivist vs subjectivist ethics. This system has a stated assumption of objectivist, whether or not the real world works that way, and whether or not Oracle_Hunter thinks that's the way it works. See my quote on this page:

("Conscience" is, of course, a short form for "the universal objective ethical system by which goodness and purity are measured in the fantasy D&D world". I thought the former was a bit snappier.)

If the debate continues, it's going to involve more or more real-world philosophy. That has a high probability of getting the thread locked. Please take that conversation elsewhere.




I've found and fixed a few points in the main posts where I seemed to be using subjectivist language. You guys could help by pointing out any I've missed.

I'd also very much like thoughts on whether degree of rationality would make a suitable second facet of Law; it seems to me that lawful creatures (Inevitables, Devils, Formians, Monks) are almost inherently more reason-oriented and less emotion-oriented than chaotic creatures (Slaad, Demons, Orcs, Barbarians). It generally adheres to many people's colloquial use of the term "lawful" as a rough category (ie, one not argued directly from the text). And it also captures what I was trying to go for in the original; those with strong intellectual beliefs will generally behave logically in accordance with them, while those without that stark internal standard will respond more to the ebb and flow of emotions. Now, given that I am changing the official definition in my system (it's my variant, after all), could this make a superior category to the one that's already there and crossed out? And what should the category be referred to as?