[Alignment Replacement] The Color Wheel - Now With More Green!

[gkathellar]

Two things:

A) They provide mechanical representations of abstract concepts which are very real forces within many fantasy worlds.

B) They serve as guidelines for the character development and set the tone of the world they're at play in.

Since we tend to assume alignment has real, mechanical effects, any given system has to do both. NWoD's major supernatural templates and LFR show how to do this well. D&D's two axes ... not so much.

[hamishspence]

B) They serve as guidelines for the character development and set the tone of the world they're at play in.

Since we tend to assume alignment has real, mechanical effects, any given system has to do both. NWoD's major supernatural templates and LFR show how to do this well. D&D's two axes ... not so much.

What about the Palladium system?

This site:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

appears to try mapping Palladium alignment to D&D alignment.

[Glimbur]

To me, alignment should be an indicator of the kinds of ethical choices a person will make. This requires choosing an ethical system, so we'll go with deontology.

In WoD, Vampires on the path of Humanity will in general limit themselves to keep their humanity in the face of the beast. It's interesting and thematic for the game, and tells us some things about methods but little about goals. It also suggests how they will make ethical choices, so it's legit alignment by my definition.

In GURPS, RISUS, Wuthering Heights, and many other role playing systems there is no overarching alignment system. Common goals and common methods are recognized by individuals or groups who then work together, or don't.

Star Wars has the Light and Dark side... but if you're not force sensitive then that's not a big deal. Ethics is up to the character's personality, and is not categorized.

Dungeons and Dragons has the two axes we all know and... well, know anyway. They do a decent job of telling us the sort of people who will generally have similar goals and methods: lawful good will build strong communities, chaotic good will build strong individuals to protect freedom and "good", lawful evil will build strong communities and rule them for personal power, chaotic evil will pursue personal power with less focus on powerful organization. Good and Evil are reasonably clear in most situations, Chaos and Law are murky. Amusingly, it's possible for LE characters to be ethical by their own standards if deontology is accepted as correct... as long as they choose the correct rules for themselves. This means the DM and players need to select an actual set of rules which actually determine Good, but we mostly have such a list in our society anyway, so that's not hard. It does take some refinement to make good sufficiently broad as to allow both CG and LG to exist. Angels will in general act in accordance with the meta-game universal standards for good, devils and demons will not, and neutral outsiders will sometimes follow the standards.

This alignment system tells us what people value as the highest good, but there is too much variation in each color for it to really tell us about groups which will have similar methods and goals. White could be anywhere from LG to LE in D&D terms, Red is by nature unpredictable like CN, Blue doesn't tell us about the ethical stance on issues, Black seems most like NE, so they are likely to choose themselves over others in ethical situations, and Green is like Blue in that it doesn't tell us about a person's ethics. It's an interesting personality test and helps you explore your character's thoughts but doesn't guide ethical decision making and therefore fails as an alignment system under my standard.

[Hyooz]

Classic DnD alignment represents a character's allegiances to the primordial forces of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. It assumes a base existence of definite "Good" and "Evil" practices that give rise to beings that represent these philosophies, which are also eternally at war with each other.

A Good character in DnD, then, has aligned himself with the forces of pure goodness, and follows in the absolute morality they are manifest of.

Repeat for the other alignment stuff.

Outside of the whole "defining your allegiance to primordial Good that makes up the universe" alignment is largely useless and just gets in the way of things. Any system that tries to break it down into manageable chunks is going to be too vague to really matter and generally meaningless. Unless these forces of absolute Good and/or Evil/Law/Chaos/Red/Green/Blue/Pimento/Chevy/Ford play a major enough role in a campaign or setting to necessitate knowing where every character stands, it really is a pretty pointless mechanic. That's what the "Personality" box on a character sheet is for.

[Havvy]

It would be a helpful addition to this system to have non-[Color] creatures be described.

For example, non-Red would include creatures like Kingdom Heart's heartless and nobodies. Heartless as a whole tend towards being non-Green as well, though are definitely black. Nobodies are White with blue secondary.

The Auditors of Reality in the Discworld universe would be non-Black.

Anything mindless (including most primitive computers) would be non-Blue.

Those who are egotistical to the point of uncaring of the outside world would be non-White.

[NineThePuma]

"Non-color" just means "Different color" unless it's completely mindless. If it's completely mindless, it's Colorless.

[Havvy]

But there are creatures that literally are without an aspect of the alignment. If an Auditor has a thought not in sync with the other auditors, it winks out of existence. It cannot be black. As such, it is non-Black. It is also white for this very reason, but black and white can coexist together, so distinguishing the two expands the field. And the fact that no color is truly against the other means that non-[Color] does not bring in contradictions.

[NineThePuma]

But that does make the system more than slightly ridiculous and also breaks the relative simplicity of the system. I'd avoid that whole shabang and stick with what is actually supported by the cards and fluff.

[Havvy]

Complexity in alignment is a bad thing? If you want it simple, you only need one paragraph to explain it.

While most creatures have a little bit of each color in them, there are some creatures that are devoid of one or more colors. Any creature which does not think is completely colorless. Two examples are the lacking of red and black. Creatures that cannot feel emotion cannot be red. Creatures who act only in concert with other creatures cannot be black.


Also, by having such a paragraph, you inspire people to go out to create these creatures void of specific colors, and possibly use them as enemies for the PCs.

[Owrtho]

Actually a black creature could act only in concert with others. It would just to so in such a way as to best benefit itself.

Owrtho

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Actually a black creature could act only in concert with others. It would just to so in such a way as to best benefit itself.

Owrtho

Sounds like he's still only acting in his own self interest, then. Best case scenario, the person is a mobster and thus WB (or LE-cornered, as I described earlier).

[Lord_Gareth]

To clarify on the case of Auditors specifically: gaining an individual identity destroys an Auditor, so they always act in concert.

[Owrtho]

That's my point. You can act only in concert with others, but still be black.

Owrtho

[Thrice Dead Cat]

That's my point. You can act only in concert with others, but still be black.

Owrtho

Right, but he's not black because he's working with others. He just happens to be black and happens to have the same goals as others - or, as I already mentioned, is multi-colored with probably white in this case and would have roughly the same predictions if you had used the old 3x3 grid in the default DND setting.

[Lord_Gareth]

Right, but he's not black because he's working with others. He just happens to be black and happens to have the same goals as others - or, as I already mentioned, is multi-colored with probably white in this case and would have roughly the same predictions if you had used the old 3x3 grid in the default DND setting.

Since folks want to keep coming back to the Grid and I'm getting rather sick of this, here's the primary difference:

3x3 pre-supposes an objective morality system, whereas the Wheel pre-supposes a subjective system. 3x3 is great for dungeon crawls and black-and-white campaigns; the Wheel is great for moral ambiguity and exploring realistic motivations and personality traits. 3x3 has villains that work FOR THE EVULZ and...well, the Wheel probably doesn't, but I won't put anything past my fellow DMs.

Does that help define it any?

[Admiral Squish]

Hmm...
I think I'd have to say:
Primary: White
Secondary: Green/Red
Enemies: Black

I'm all for the greater good. I am. I am totally willing to help others, often at my own expense. Usually, it's little things, like holding doors or carrying the bags. I think that if I can take the consequences, I have a duty to make the sacrifice. Partially, it's probably a pride thing. Atlas syndrome. If I can carry the weight of the world, then it would be wrong to make another, who might not be able to take it, deal with it.

But my secondary is muddled. I believe in instinct and personal freedoms. I do almost everything on intuition. There's no logic behind pirouetting across the kitchen, I just wanted to. I also like to believe that there is some kind of plan, some force guiding the flow of the world. On the other hand, I'm almost never angry in any serious way. I might curse at the TV when Jersey Shore comes on, but that's only natural, and that's as far as it goes. I barely ever shout and I've never actually hit someone out of anger (Though, I did hit some THINGS when I was younger and stupider). Plus, I don't get along well with nature, and i can't stand when 'traditions' get in the way of making progress. i think there's a touch of blue in there, but it's odd. I like knowledge. I love it, in fact, and I have a massive library of completely useless trivia in my brain. I'm also in full support of progress and change. Adaptation is how you stay alive. But the whole 'logic' thing? Planning, subtlety? I'm terrible at it. While I respect people who can pull off the logical process, I know it's just not my thing and move on to the usual red/green strategy of 'try again, and harder'.

So, while blue's not my enemy, I can't say it's a part of my colors, either. As for black... We do not get along. I'm going to leave it at that before I get venomous.

[Vermithrax]

I disagree with your statement that Red is always the aggressor in White/Red conflicts. It is only when White oversteps its bounds, applies rules too generally and without regard for individual needs, or reactively prohibits actions that are not actually detrimental to the community that Red balks at society's mental chains. Red has the same sort of disregard for White's procrustean efforts as Black has for its diametric bigotries, and is more likely to simply ignore restrictions it considers arbitrary and pointless than deliberately seek out rules to break for the sheer joy of provoking White (though some may, that is more on the black side).

Another difficulty I have with the system is that all the color conflicts are false dichotomies:

Spoiler

Show

If Green is all about continuity of the status quo in nature, then it embraces both Growth and Entropy as life is always a delicate balance between the two. I grow a new layer of dermis each week on average, which means that I slough off and regrow all my skin every month-and-a-half. If it were to grow a little bit faster I would turn into a giant blob of flesh and die. If it were to decay faster my insides would be exposed to disease vectors and the elements, and I would die. All life is a process, a small ripple of current within the pool of reality. There is nothing static about the status quo as nature is in constant, violent flux. There is nothing that is not already part of nature, nothing for it to work against except itself.

Which brings me to Progress vs. Tradition, because life is an optimization process. Through fierce competition and constant adaptation it seeks to be better at survival, and humanity's seeming supremacy is evidence of such. Our tool using nature has caused us to compete better and adapt faster, out-pacing ordinary evolution while remaining subject to it. There is much we can yet learn from nature, but we are better able to do so through artifice.

Logic and Emotion are both decision making tools and while each have their uses, they are best used in tandem. Clear thinking and knowledge help find the best methods of achieving my goals, but I have to know what they are first. I have to ask the right question to get an answer that's useful. Desire and passion provide such direction. At the same time, emotions are the aggregate wisdom of my direct ancestors as pertains to situations similar to the one in which I find myself having them. It would be foolish to disregard such useful information.

Altruism and Self Interest are essentially synonyms: The best way to raise yourself is to raise those around you; the best way to raise those around you is to raise yourself. Neither charity nor coercion are effective means to achieving my ends. Both have negative unintended consequences, whether that be demeaning the other and causing dependency or allowing harm and reciprocal wrath to plague my best intentions. Tit-for-tat, with forgiveness, is the best strategy. Trade is the only form of interaction in which both participants benefit.

Choice and Destiny are one and the same. I can choose what I do, but I can't choose what I want to do. Paradoxically, if I choose to do something other than what I desire, it is only because I desire something else more. I am always choosing what I want, whether or not I realize what that is, and to the degree my desires are biologically preprogrammed, so too are my actions. The only conflict arises when my choices are constrained by circumstances outside my control to include only undesired options, such as between submission and death when overpowered by an enemy. I desire to choose something other, and am thus destined to rail against my oppressors.

As such, Order and Freedom are also inclusive. Repressing people causes societal conflict, not the other way around. If individual needs are met, the community thrives by default.

All the colors complement each other, with conflict arising only through shortsightedness.

As to what an alignment system is for, that is simple: Plot hooks for conflict and character development. I have to say though, that Burning Wheel has the best system for that I've yet seen. It's very simple too, just make player goals explicit:

Players describe the three most pertinent beliefs of their character (which can be indicative of the kind of game they want to play) and what actions he or she intends to take in accordance with them this gaming session. There are unique mechanical benefits for acting both with and against such beliefs. If a character acts with a belief enough, they gain a permanent benefit related to such action. If they act against it enough, they must change it to something else. Great for creating action, conflict and consequences without all the pointless semantics arguments.

[Glimbur]

Since folks want to keep coming back to the Grid and I'm getting rather sick of this, here's the primary difference:

3x3 pre-supposes an objective morality system, whereas the Wheel pre-supposes a subjective system. 3x3 is great for dungeon crawls and black-and-white campaigns; the Wheel is great for moral ambiguity and exploring realistic motivations and personality traits. 3x3 has villains that work FOR THE EVULZ and...well, the Wheel probably doesn't, but I won't put anything past my fellow DMs.

Does that help define it any?

What's the point of a relative alignment system? It's possible to pull out alignment entirely from D&D or many other games and play a morally ambiguous game, but I don't see the advantage in adding the Color Wheel. It's a personality test which tells you something about goals and methods, but you can do that just as easily for each person individually without the Color Wheel.

The mechanical implementation is a bigger concern: selfish people can heal other selfish people as well as scholars and emotional people, but not community focused people or instinctive/insightful/Green people. Paladins have to believe in communities, monks cannot act on their emotions, and the new outsiders are... actually, they feel more alien than standard D&D outsiders do which is a good thing. But the person to person interactions get stranger: a hypothetical selfless person who pursues the good of everyone through organization and cooperation cannot heal everyone they meet.

[Jallorn]

What's the point of a relative alignment system? It's possible to pull out alignment entirely from D&D or many other games and play a morally ambiguous game, but I don't see the advantage in adding the Color Wheel. It's a personality test which tells you something about goals and methods, but you can do that just as easily for each person individually without the Color Wheel.

The mechanical implementation is a bigger concern: selfish people can heal other selfish people as well as scholars and emotional people, but not community focused people or instinctive/insightful/Green people. Paladins have to believe in communities, monks cannot act on their emotions, and the new outsiders are... actually, they feel more alien than standard D&D outsiders do which is a good thing. But the person to person interactions get stranger: a hypothetical selfless person who pursues the good of everyone through organization and cooperation cannot heal everyone they meet.

Why not? There are no restrictions on whom healing can be used...

As for the restrictions to classes, well, it makes a good deal more sense that a Paladin should be community minded than it does that he should be LG, even though there are many similarities.

[Lord_Gareth]

Another difficulty I have with the system is that all the color conflicts are false dichotomies:

Right *cracks knuckles* Let's do this!

If Green is all about continuity of the status quo in nature, then it embraces both Growth and Entropy as life is always a delicate balance between the two. I grow a new layer of dermis each week on average, which means that I slough off and regrow all my skin every month-and-a-half. If it were to grow a little bit faster I would turn into a giant blob of flesh and die. If it were to decay faster my insides would be exposed to disease vectors and the elements, and I would die. All life is a process, a small ripple of current within the pool of reality. There is nothing static about the status quo as nature is in constant, violent flux. There is nothing that is not already part of nature, nothing for it to work against except itself.

And that's the thing. Green sees one harmonious, unbroken whole, where death is a part of growth. Black doesn't care about growth, except perhaps growth of the self. As was stated, Green's beef with Black is one of ideological consequences: because Black doesn't necessarily care who or what Black damages, Black is an inherent threat to the whole, to the Plan. Green cannot abide that, and thus they seek to limit the damage Black can deal.

Which brings me to Progress vs. Tradition, because life is an optimization process. Through fierce competition and constant adaptation it seeks to be better at survival, and humanity's seeming supremacy is evidence of such. Our tool using nature has caused us to compete better and adapt faster, out-pacing ordinary evolution while remaining subject to it. There is much we can yet learn from nature, but we are better able to do so through artifice.

Green has shifted away from pure naturism into a more predestination-focused theme, which is where it conflicts with Blue. Blue doesn't believe in predestiny. Blue is kind of offended that you asked, in fact. Blue believes that knowledge can grant a being perfect power over itself and its environment, allowing it to bring out that which is great in anything it touches. Green says that everything is already great, and if Blue would leave it the hell alone it'd get back to being totally rad. Remember, Blue is about change and Green is about harmony - Blue would rather tinker with something to improve it rather than learn from it to improve itself, which is where it conflicts with Green.

Logic and Emotion are both decision making tools and while each have their uses, they are best used in tandem. Clear thinking and knowledge help find the best methods of achieving my goals, but I have to know what they are first. I have to ask the right question to get an answer that's useful. Desire and passion provide such direction. At the same time, emotions are the aggregate wisdom of my direct ancestors as pertains to situations similar to the one in which I find myself having them. It would be foolish to disregard such useful information.

Sounds like a personal ideal to me, as very often logic dictates that your emotions be ignored and you make the optimal choice in any given situation, while your emotions or ideals may dictate that you do something else entirely. Blue also favors thought over action, where Red favors action over thought.

Altruism and Self Interest are essentially synonyms: The best way to raise yourself is to raise those around you; the best way to raise those around you is to raise yourself. Neither charity nor coercion are effective means to achieving my ends. Both have negative unintended consequences, whether that be demeaning the other and causing dependency or allowing harm and reciprocal wrath to plague my best intentions. Tit-for-tat, with forgiveness, is the best strategy. Trade is the only form of interaction in which both participants benefit.

An interesting idea, but I'm failing to see a false dichotomy here. White believes in Right and Wrong and encourages people (sometimes forcefully) to do what it perceives of as Right. Black doesn't care. Sure, maybe a Black character is the trader you described above, but a Black character might also be a con artist, a corporate embezzler, or a killer for hire. Such ruthlessness is appalling to White, which can do nothing less than strike against it and attempt to kill the evil at its root.

Choice and Destiny are one and the same. I can choose what I do, but I can't choose what I want to do. Paradoxically, if I choose to do something other than what I desire, it is only because I desire something else more. I am always choosing what I want, whether or not I realize what that is, and to the degree my desires are biologically preprogrammed, so too are my actions. The only conflict arises when my choices are constrained by circumstances outside my control to include only undesired options, such as between submission and death when overpowered by an enemy. I desire to choose something other, and am thus destined to rail against my oppressors.

Don't even touch this can of worms, my friend. Not only do many folks choose to do things that they don't want to do, but attempting to reconcile choice and destiny into mutually compatible concepts is something that theologians and theorists have been failing at since the Greeks rolled into town. The two ideas just don't reconcile. Period.

As such, Order and Freedom are also inclusive. Repressing people causes societal conflict, not the other way around. If individual needs are met, the community thrives by default.

Not necessarily true, my friend. And remember, just like folks in real life, people using the Color Wheel are not always aware of optimal choices or in harmony with each other's ideals. Some White characters might balk at setting up a facist dictatorship, but others might think it's just fine in order to ensure that law and peace are maintained. Likewise, some Red characters might not flaunt the law just to do so, but others might go out and stir up chaos just because they hate rules that much. Both colors view these activities as equal, which is where conflict comes in.


@The Mods - I'm pretty sure this isn't necromancy, but if it is, I beg you to keep the thread open - I've work to do on it.

[Jallorn]

I believe that since it is in the homebrew thread and you are the creator, you are allowed to resurrect it.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I'm hoping the work takes it farther away from the established alignment grid, as I'm still seeing a large, large amount of positive correlation going on here. And while I like the idea in concept and for the joy of homebrewing, I don't think you're going to step away from that. White's going to end up primarily in LG turf. Red in KAY-OHS. Black in Evlolz. Green, the Neutral zone and Blue whereever is "optimal."

And I honestly think that has more to do with the source material than your own work, Gareth. Just my two cents.

[Jallorn]

I'm hoping the work takes it farther away from the established alignment grid, as I'm still seeing a large, large amount of positive correlation going on here. And while I like the idea in concept and for the joy of homebrewing, I don't think you're going to step away from that. White's going to end up primarily in LG turf. Red in KAY-OHS. Black in Evlolz. Green, the Neutral zone and Blue whereever is "optimal."

And I honestly think that has more to do with the source material than your own work, Gareth. Just my two cents.

See I think that in a lot of those, you're seeing the extremes. But yeah, source material, and an unavoidable desire to compare it to the 3.5 alignment system does tend to create a bit of pressure to see extremes.

What I like most about this is the fact that you can have a character encompass opposing ideals. For example, a primarily red character, one who is a champion for freedom, perhaps one who is protesting slavery, could still have the white and blue colors as well. In fact, that's what I would see Martin Luther King Jr. as, primarily red, with white and blue secondary colors. He fought for freedom, but he did it through knowledge and by trying to use the established system.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm hoping the work takes it farther away from the established alignment grid, as I'm still seeing a large, large amount of positive correlation going on here. And while I like the idea in concept and for the joy of homebrewing, I don't think you're going to step away from that. White's going to end up primarily in LG turf. Red in KAY-OHS. Black in Evlolz. Green, the Neutral zone and Blue whereever is "optimal."

And I honestly think that has more to do with the source material than your own work, Gareth. Just my two cents.

Well, I'm continuing my work on the Allied Colors: Cooperation and Conflict right now, so if you wanted to read what I've got going it may help. I'm still not quite getting how White is going to end up LG, however, given that racist fanatics and fascists are just as White as your classic paladin image.

[Jallorn]

See I think that in a lot of those, you're seeing the extremes. But yeah, source material, and an unavoidable desire to compare it to the 3.5 alignment system does tend to create a bit of pressure to see extremes.

What I like most about this is the fact that you can have a character encompass opposing ideals. For example, a primarily red character, one who is a champion for freedom, perhaps one who is protesting slavery, could still have the white and blue colors as well. In fact, that's what I would see Martin Luther King Jr. as, primarily red, with white and blue secondary colors. He fought for freedom, but he did it through knowledge and by trying to use the established system.

Or what about various economists who would, at some point in their life at the least, be described as primarily black and white and blue secondarily? They seek personal power and/or wealth, but do it by being smart and through the established system.

I changed my mind. What I like most about this system is that you can actually tell something about someone with it. 3.5 alignment system is just far too generic.

[Lord_Gareth]

Allied Colors - Cooperation and Conflict is up for your edification and enjoyment - just check the second post of this thread!

Comments are, as always, appreciated.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I personally don't like the personification of the colors in the allied sections, as that is generally used only for the board strokes that apply to that color and I find that it clashes with the general idea that the philanthropist and the fascist are both white, but for very different reasons, natch. In the case of W/U, I can see less of a conflict between decisive action and sacrifice versus "just as planned" and more "better world now versus best world later."

Assuming you're still sticking to source material, Blue is far from altruistic. One of the overlapping themes with blue and black is, y'know mindrape. That and the fact that thieves of thought and information hoarders/brokers alike are both common blue characters and archetypes that's not the guaranteed clash.

Red/Black usually steps beyond mere freedom and into honest hedonism. It's less "I am free" and more "Every moment is better than the last!" Again, if moving away from source, that's cool.

[NineThePuma]

Sticking to source material is hard since, you know, pretty much every character archtype has been embodied at different points by pretty much every color. We even had a Hot Blooded Berserker Artifact once, if memory serves.

Saying "Oh, this is how the source material depicts it!" is alright in most scenarios, but unless you're going to point to specific examples, the source material is simply too broad to encompass perfectly.

[Havvy]

Yay, additions! It is almost like this thread was lost to the burials of time. Still, I have it in my signature. Great work so far. I still think my anti-color idea has some merit. But ultimately, it is up to you in how you present this. It is probably too much to digest at once in they were integrated in the main rules, but as an aside, they could work.

And no, you did not gravedig, since you own the thread.

[Lord_Gareth]

Good news, folks! A fellow poster of mine has expressed interest in this project and wishes to write up a Cosmology! Now if we could only get down to changing some alignment subtypes. Hrm, maybe I can get Trib to make us some monsters...