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

[Lord_Gareth]

Disclaimer: The original Color Wheel was designed by Wizards of the Coast for their trading card game, Magic: the Gathering. Parts have been changed to make it more applicable to Dungeons and Dragons.

Color as Alignment

The Color Wheel differs from the traditional D&D alignments in that the five Colors possess both literal incarnations (such as Outsiders) and non-literal philosiphies; that is, they are both ideologies and forces that shape the cosmos. While no part of this system falls apart when dealing with literal incarnations, the following is centered around mortals, for whom the colors are ideologies. That last bears repeating - any given character's color-alignment is not irrevocable, and does not represent some cosmic force nesting in their soul; it serves merely as a baseline descriptor for personality and methodology.

Each character, then, has a Primary Color - this represents the greater portion (or most fundamental portions) of their personality, ideology, and goals. For a character who only possesses a Primary Color, it also represents their most commonly used methodology. Primary Color is very intrinsic to the character; while it can change, it should only change after long, involved character development, or after especially severe or sudden stress, trauma, or magical interference. The death of a loved one, the birth of one's child, systemic magical torture, or witnessing an incarnate deity are all examples of events that might change a Primary Color.

Each character also has up to two Secondary Colors, which modify their Primary Color. Secondary Colors combine with the Primary Color to create a new philosiphy and outlook on life, but the Primary Color retains precedence; that is, the goals and outlooks of the Primary Color are still a greater part of the alignment mix than those of the Secondary Colors. Most often, Secondary Colors represent the lengths that a character is willing to go in order to fulfill the goals postulated by their Primary Color; that is, Secondary Colors most often represents methodology, as opposed to ideology. This isn't always the case, but it is important to note that a character needn't support or believe in their Secondary Colors - merely use them. Secondary Colors are much more fluid than their Primary counterparts, and change as a character's belief in what is acceptable or effective changes.

Each color has two Allied Colors - colors closely related to them. A color shares certain aspects of ideology and methodology with its allies, and societies based on those colors often get along to a certain extent. What this means is that a given character doesn't necessarily have to take on Secondary Colors or change their Color alignment if they're dipping into the methods/ideas of their Allied Colors.

Additionally, each color has two Enemy Colors - colors opposed to them in both ideology and methodology. It is important to note that a character can have a Color Alignment that includes Enemy Colors; the combinations are not impossible, but do create sources of self-conflict. Generally speaking, any given color actively opposes its enemy, even if only out of self-interest, but this needn't necessarily be the case, and it's certainly possible for a mixed-color group to cooperate, even if they bicker and fight over methods (or ideas) whenever they have the chance to sit down with a few pints. Generally speaking, repeated or prolonged participation in the methods or ideas of an Enemy Color should necessitate taking it on as a Secondary Color or an alignment shift to include that color.

The five colors are broken down as follows:

White - Order and Community: White believes in the rule of law. Only by upholding the fabric of society can life become peaceful and ideal. White believes in a clear-cut sense of right and wrong, and works with unity, intelligence, and planning in order to accomplish its goals. To White, the individual is not as important as the society; though it might regret it afterwards, the sacrifice of the one to save the many is perfectly acceptable to White. At its best, White creates utopian societies where well-managed rules ensure peace, tranquility, and happiness. At its worst, White creates war-driven dictatorships ruled by fanatics and madmen. Good luck explaining that to White. Allied Colors - Blue and Green. Enemy Colors - Black and Red.

Blue - Knowledge and Discovery: Blue believes in perfection; every thing and every being has infinite potential, and all it takes to unlock that potential is enough knowledge. Thus, the "Platonic" goal of Blue is omniscience - if one knows all the answers, one can do anything, be anything, and change anything. Blue loves learning secrets, and trickery, roundabout solutions, logical thought and careful, methodical planning are all hallmarks of its methods. At its best, Blue's is the enlightened scientist, fulfilling an obligation to society in order to improve and perfect all aspects of life. At its worst, Blue is an emotionless torturer, prying into forbidden secrets and vivisecting its victims for the sheer sake of knowledge. Allied Colors - Black and White. Enemy Colors Green and Red.

Black - Power and Individuality: Black believes that everyone is selfish. It's a cold, bleak philosiphy, but it's there - everyone's going to look out for Number One, and so should you. Black's "Platonic" goal is omnipotence; only if you have all the power are you assured of your freedom. Those who espouse Black's philosiphies often end up participating in some rather unwholesome and/or bizzare practices (blood sacrifice, for example, or ritual scarification), but it is important to note that the profit-centric shopkeeper is just as Black as the soul-trading sorcerer. At its best, Black creates societies of enlightened self-interest, where individual rights and opportunities take precedence over communal rules. At its worst, Black creates societies where the worst atrocities are permissable so long as one is capable of committing them without retribution. Allied Colors - Blue and Red. Enemy Colors - Green and White.

Red - Freedom and Emotion: Red believes in acting on one's emotions, and in the freedom to do so; if you love, act upon it. If you rage, attack, if you feel sorrow, weep. Red believes in absolute freedom, and that people are happiest when they're honest with themselves. Trickery, spontenaity, and direct solutions are all hallmarks of Red's methodology; Red is far more likely to simply smash a wall or blow it up than it is to, say, build a door through it. At its best, Red is genuinely loyal, caring, and committed to the idea of personal freedom. At its worst, Red is random and pointlessly destructive, smashing through restricting obstacles, laws, and people simply because they're there. Allied Colors - Black and Green. Enemy Colors - Blue and White.

Green - Growth and Harmony: Green believes in the concept of predestination; in Green's view, there's a Plan to create a perfect world, and a being can be happiest simply by discovering their role in the Plan and fulfilling it. Green trusts its instincts and harmonizes with the world around it, using intuition and observation to "grow" their way around problems either physically, mentally, magically or spiritually. Green dislikes using new ideas and inventions when more naturalistic or traditional solutions will work, and distrusts influences such as artifice, logic, and selfishness that hinder a being's personal growth and potentially endanger the Plan. Green characters often associate heavily with the natural world in their quest to grow personally and seek their role in the multiverse. At its best, Green is wise, understanding, and insightful. At its worst, Green is savage, short-sighted and hidebound. Allied Colors - Red and White. Enemy Colors - Black and Blue.

Making the Shift - Introducing the Color Wheel to Your Game

Shifting the nine traditional alignments to the Color Wheel isn't as hard as it might seem. Certain classes require certain alignments; all one has to do is examine why they require those alignments and then translate to a color restriction. Paladins, for example, are required to be Lawful Good because they are expected to produce the most good for the most people whenever possible; this translates easily into a requirement that Paladins have White in their alignment mix. Monks, on the other hand, are required to be Lawful because they need strict self-discipline and control to learn their art; thus, a Monk's alignment requirement would be "Any Non-Red".

Abilities such as Smite translate simply into Smite Enemy Color; any given character/monster is treated as all of its colors for the purposes of such abilities. Similar methods can be applied to spells which require certain alignments.

Recommended Mechanical Changes

The following changes are recommended (but certainly not required) for games that include the Color Wheel.

Spoiler

Show

- Clerics no longer channel positive/negative energy to spontaenously cast spells. Instead, a cleric may sacrifice a spell of equal or greater level to spontaenously cast a cure spell on a creature which either shares a color with them or has a color allied with their own, or to spontaenously cast an inflict spell on a creature which has a color opposed to their own. If a creature has both (a W cleric casting on a B/U wizard), they may choose whether to heal or harm. Keep in mind that, under this system, positive and negative energy no longer exist. That means that cure spells no longer hurt undead, and inflict no longer heal them; instead, the undead are affected by cure and inflict just as other creatures are.

- Smite [Alignment] becomes Smite Enemy Color. In the case of paladins, it becomes Smite Red/Black (affecting creatures who are red, black, or both).

- Detect [Alignment] becomes Detect Alignment; creatures are entitled to a Will save to avoid the affect. The Detect [Alignment] group of spells is otherwise unchanged.

- The following alignment restrictions change: Paladins must have White in their alignment mix, monks may not be Red, Clerics must have at least one of their deity's colors in their alignment mix, Barbarians may not be Blue, and Bards no longer possess an alignment restriction.

Self-Reference: Morality in Your Campaign Setting

Spoiler

Show

The Color Wheel system, unlike default D&D, does not assume that characters wear their color stamped on their foreheads, and there is no reason for characters in your world to refer to each other by color unless you choose to build your world this way. Instead, various spells or philosophies that target certain color(s) are likely to target traits shared by that color - for example, a paladin may refer to his Smite Red and/or Black ability as Rebuffing the Wicked, or even Smite Chaos. Likewise, a character who detects as "Green" on a spell is identified as a seeker of the natural way, a follower of destiny, a creature who survives on instinct.

Mind you, there's nothing actually wrong with these spells or abilities revealing a creature as "Blue" or "Black", but, in all honesty, it would sound a little silly at the gaming table, no?

Two-Color Mixes

The following are general examples of what might happen when you start mixing two colors. It's important to note that these mixes can be done with either color Primary. One's choice of Primary color shifts the focus of the mix a bit, one direction or the other; for example, a White primary character with Black as a secondary color would more often put the agenda of their group as a whole first.

Spoiler

Show

Black/White: Black/White, at first glance, look like they won't mix, but they find common ground in a compromise; a small group which constantly strives to increase its own power, wealth, and comfort. Organized crime is a great example of Black/White in action, but so would a small group of men who constantly pass the mayorship of a village between each other. The biggest self-conflict that occurs with a Black/White character is when the desires/needs of the group conflict with the desires/needs of the individual.

Black/Green: Black's conflict with green is one of individualism vs. predestination; their compromise is found in the idea of fluid destiny. In essence, a Black/Green individual or organization has a different idea of "natural" than a purely Green organization, while still adhering to the idea of conforming to Nature that would be distasteful to a purely Black one. The biggest self-conflict facing a Black/Green character is one of motivation and the definition of "acceptable" - how far can one push the boundries before one has left "nature", however vaguely it is defined. Pushed too hard or too far, Black/Green becomes paralyzed by indecision or else snaps into manic fanatacism.

Black/Blue: Black/Blue combines knowledge with the ruthless will to pursue it. Black's focus on individuality and selfishness gains a serious edge when combined with Blue's trickery and pursuit of knowledge, creating characters and organizations that delve deep into forbidden lore, make extensive use of blackmail, and other, similar maneuvers. Power corrupts, though, and combining knowledge and raw power can very easily lead Black/Blue to showcasing the worst examples of both colors. Black/Blue's biggest weakness is indecision - should it take a direct approach, or try something more subtle?

Black/Red: Anarchy ascendant; Black/Red "organizations" barely qualify as such. Black/Red believes in both selfishness and absolute freedom, and while this can, occasionally, lead to genteel philosiphers espousing the virtues of both, it most often ends up with hedonistic sociopaths gleefully seeking their next thrill without heed to the consequences or the collateral damage. Their unwillingness - or inability - to empathize with others is their biggest weakness; very often, Black/Red fails to understand the concept of consequences to their actions, let alone anticipate them.

White/Green: Harmony is the key word when talking about this color pair; White/Green integrates nature into its society, combining White's love of order with Green's belief in predestination. White/Green's greatest weakness is pride; all too often, it falls into the trap that its way is best, and that no one else can possibly know what's good. At its best, White/Green is genuinely caring, wise, and harmonious. At its worst, White/Green creates emotionless hive-minds, where each individual is enslaved to the will of the whole.

White/Blue: White/Blue believes in the rule of law, and creates and enforces laws that it believes will benefit the most number of people. It also uses those laws as a weapon and a shield, turning them so deliberate and obtuse that, in some of the most extreme cases, it can take a lifetime to learn all of the rules. White/Blue's greatest failing is overanalyzation; White/Blue has a very reactionary nature, and would often prefer to do nothing until it has more information rather than take a risk.

White/Red: White/Red believes in societies which support and protect individual freedoms while still looking out for the common good. Very often, White/Red is willing to use less-than-ordered means to achieve order or defend the public good; a vigilante might be White/Red, as might the leader of the mob out to lynch a local pedarast. White/Red's greatest source of self-conflict is when personal freedoms conflict with societal good; they must decide where to draw the line or go mad with the unresolvable conflict.

Red/Green: Savage is the term to describe Red/Green - raw emotion mixes with instinct to create a being that acts less on thought than it does intuition. Red/Green is brutally direct, preferring quick physical solutions over more lengthy intellectual social ones. Red/Green does not mix well with societies in general; Green's love of nature combines with Red's raw emotion (in this case, rage) with predictable results. Its greatest failing is an utter lack of thought; unless they fight to retain some form of self-control, Red/Green often barrels headfirst through life, unaware and unheeding of the consequences for their recklessly destructive actions.

Red/Blue: Red/Blue combines intuition with logic; mad tinkers, eccentrict old wizards, and gibbering oracles might all be Red/Blue. A Red/Blue character might resemble an obsessive fanboy, researching and practically worshipping their object of interest, but they might also easily resemble an absentminded genius, leaping from one project to the next without testing or sometimes even finishing their previous work. Red/Blue's greatest weakness is consistency; all their brilliance won't help them a lick if they can't carry a project, plan, or thought to completion.

Blue/Green: Blue/Green believes that nature's basic blueprint can be improved. At first, this attitude seems purely Blue, but Blue/Green is adamant that nature has the right idea; they're just speeding things along. Blue/Green mixes Blue's intelligence and foresight with Green's penchant for direct solutions, applying just the right amount of brute force to a weak point in a problem for maximum results. Blue/Green's greatest weakess is self-denial; rather than deal with the paradox of change vs. destiny, Blue/Green ignores it, and thus often misses vital flaws in its plans, thought patterns, and personality.

Alignment Subtypes and Outsiders

Spoiler

Show

The idea of living beings which represent aspects of philosiphy, ideology, or morality is as old as human myth, and the Color Wheel certainly does not exclude the idea. However, each color shifts somewhat when one is dealing with it as a universal force, rather than purely as a matter of philosiphy. It is important to note that the forces represented by each color are amoral, and thus their creations carry quite a bit of that amorality with them. The colors as forces of reality break down as follows:

Spoiler

Show

White - Order: White distills into pure cosmic order; the force that resists chance and independance. Where purely White forces pass, ironclad patterns and laws are left in the fabric of reality; overexposure to the distilled essence of White can leave local reality in a kind of feedback loop, forever caught in the same predictable chain of events.

Blue - Change: Distinct from the idea of Chaos, Blue distills into pure change; anything that can be changed is in the wake of Blue energy, refining or debasing itself into entirely new forms. Fabulous inventions of magic and technology are the result of the application of raw Blue energy - so are world-shattering catastrophes.

Black - Entropy: Individual cases may very, but the cold stark truth of it is that Black takes; in the presence of raw Black energy things break down, fall apart, and die. Left unchecked, raw Black energy consumes whole worlds, attempting to feed its endless hunger.

Red - Chaos: Red's love of freedom distills into pure Chaos; anything that can happen, will happen, and the passing of pure Red energy would often be hilarious if the effects weren't so devastating. Red leaves spells unstable and unsafe, rewrites the laws of physics, and turns the universe upside down; toying with it is not reccomended.

Green - Life: Unchecked growth is the consequence of pure Green energy; new forms of life emerge and change at a terrifying rate which, if left unchecked, will result in the rapid consumption of available resources and then itself. Raw Green energy spreads like a cancer; uncontrollable life, inevitably destroying all around it.

What this means for beings that are shaped by the raw Color forces, yet have intelligence (such as Outsiders with alignment subtypes) is that they either embody the color's "distilled" form and espouse whatever morals they wish or that they embody the philosophy and are only marginally shaped by the "distilled" form. In the first case, the being's alignment mix isn't affected by their color; that is, their motivations are their own to choose, and they may be any color, or none of them. In the second case, their alignment subtype is also their Primary color.

Regardless of their actual alignment mix, any creature with an alignment subtype is treated as though it included that color in its alignment mix for the purposes of being targeted by spells and abilities.

Enemy Color Conflicts

Spoiler

Show

White vs. Black - Morality vs. Amorality: The core of the conflict between Black and White - even beyond the idea of Individual vs. Society - is the idea of morality. White believes firmly in the idea that there is Right, and then there is Wrong, and that failure to do Right is, by elimination, Wrong. Serving the needs of the whole over your own needs is Right, to White; after all, the whole will protect even its weakest member. Does this mean that all White characters are paragons of their virtues? No. But they either strive to be, or believe they already are.

Black, on the other hand, is amoral. Note the important difference between the terms "amoral" and "immoral"; Black does not believe in the concepts of Good and Evil. Black believes it's a cold, stark universe and that when push comes to shove, you can be damn sure that people are going to prioritize themselves. To Black, the ideas of Right and Wrong are, at best, tools used to manipulate others and at worst justifications for horrid atrocities, and as far as Black's concerned that's just low. If you're going to slaughter thousands of innocent people for power, at least have the courtesy to say so.

What this means is that White sees Black as a threat to the common good - a maverick at best and a foul source of infernal corruption at worst. Black, on the other hand, sees White as foolish, naive, and a threat to its freedom. It's interesting to note that, in a way, Black is less concerned with White than White is with Black; Black doesn't care if you choose to live your life kowtowing to someone else's set of rules, which often makes White the aggressor in their conflicts.

White vs. Red - Conformity vs. Freedom: The core of the conflict between White and Red are the concepts of rules and restrictions. White believes in the rule of law, and that the greatest good can be achieved by following laws. White is quite willing to enforce its laws with dire penalties, and members of White societies who don't conform are ostracized at best and may face much worse.

Red, on the other hand, upholds freedom as a moral ideal. Red hates restricting rules, laws, objects, spells, et cetera. More often than not, a Red character will flout or break a law or rule she doesn't like simply to demonstrate that the law does not rule her - and react savagely to any attempts to make her conform.

This definitely makes Red the aggressor in the relationship; White's laws are reactionary in nature, while Red is pro-active. That said, both sides of the debate hate each other, and a White/Red conflict can turn savage and bloody, especially between two organizations.

Blue vs. Red - Thought vs. Emotion: Blue thinks, Red feels. This basic conflict, much less visceral than that between, say, White and Black, is the reason that Blue and Red drive each other absolutely nuts. Blue prizes logic and learned, tested reasoning, eschewing emotion as unreliable and unsafe. Red, on the other hand, prizes emotion as the truest expression of who a person is; Red trusts its feelings. This only rarely leads to the kind of conflicts found between more viscerally opposed colors, though when it does, it should be pointed out that Red, following its impulsive nature, is usually the aggressor.

Blue vs. Green - Choice vs. Destiny: Blue believes in infinite potential; anything can be improved and anything can be perfected, if one has the will and knowledge to do so. Indeed, many Blue characters feel a sense of obligation - their knowledge can be used for good, so it should be used for good. Blue sees no problem whatsoever in changing and improving its environment into something wholly different if that's what it takes for improvement.

Green, on the other hand, sees Nature as something that as gotten it right; every creature has its own niche that it fills perfectly; to Green, perfect happiness and harmony is achieved when one finds one's own niche and fills it. Blue's "progress" is frightening and threatening to Green, because it endangers the entire system - change one thing out of its niche, and who knows how many others might be affected?

Like most conflicts in which one side is motivated by fear, Green is often the aggressor in these disputes, attacking and destroying that which it feels is threatening to its environment. Occasionally, the sitution reverses, usually because some profit-motivated Blue organization wants to exploit the resources that Green is protecting. Very often, these conflicts turn extremely savage, extremely quickly, with Green lashing out in overwhelming attacks and Blue responding with superior destructive technology/magic.

Black vs. Green - Entropy vs. Growth: The conflict between Black and Green is one of ideological consequences. Green sees Black as pointlessly destructive, consuming without creating and divesting people, places, and the environment of all its resources. Black, on the other hand, sees Green as hopelessly naive, incapable of comprehending that unchecked growth leads to the same kind of over consumption that Green accuses it of. Like the conflict between Blue and Red, this only rarely leads to open, bloody conflict. However, when it does, one side or the other is usually the underdog; either a Green force is attacking a well-established Black organization (which is consuming/tainting the land around it), or a Black force is desperately trying to hold Green in check as an unrestricted tide of Nature threatens to overwhelm all else.

The Colorless

Spoiler

Show

Colorless creatures, at first glance, seem as though they lack alignment, and in a sense this statement is true, in that any creature incapable of making moral choices (animals and mindless beings) is colorless. However, it is possible for a sentient creature to have an "alignment" of colorless.

A colorless creature suffers from indecision or lack of motivation; general apathy pervades their belief system and methodology. Colorless creatures might resemble hell-in-a-handbasket depression cases, unmotivated slackers, or office drones who labor each day just to get by and get through without really knowing why. Alternately, a creature who has had their ability to make moral choices stripped from them is also treated as colorless; those who suffer from the Soulless template, for example, or creatures under the influence of dominate monster.

Colorless has no allied colors and no enemy colors. A colorless creature has no secondary colors. No creature may have colorless as an alignment subtype. For the purposes of determining the effects of friendly/hostile magics, a colorless creature is treated as a creature who is possessed of both an allied and an enemy color to the caster (meaning, generally, that the caster chooses the effect their spell has upon them).

A lack of color has no effect on any given part of the cosmos.

I'll gladly take any questions, clarify any confusions and, if requested, provide examples of color combinations to create alignments.

Additional Reading

Spoiler

Show

Additional Reading: Basic Reading on The Colour Wheel

Good flavor articles for the individual colours: Green, White, Blue, Black, Red. Including character examples.

Articles on the colour pair combinations, also with good examples: Green\White, Black\Green, Black\Blue, Red\White, Red\Green, Blue\Red, White\Black, White\Blue, Green\Blue, Black\Red.

[Lord_Gareth]

Edited Alignment Spells

Spoiler

Show

They shall go here

Allied Colors - Cooperation and Conflict

Spoiler

Show

Any given color has two allied colors, as has been mentioned above - colors with ideals that are compatible with its own, enabling easier cooperation. The following is a breakdown of why each color gets along with its allies and where the two of them get frustrated with each other.

White//Green - Harmony
White and Green both understand and value the idea of the group and the whole. White and Green both value the power of the flock and the importance of the whole over the individual; one bee or sparrow is insignificant in the face of the flock or hive, one ant is nothing to the safety of the colony. White and Green both believe in higher causes than mortality, and they find a lot of common ground therein.

Where White and Green conflict is in terms of methods; White is reactionary and prefers to plan its movements to ensure the greatest safety of the whole. Green, on the other hand, is often very pro-active, preferring to strike before their enemy has time to react (like an ambush predator might). White is thoughtful; Green is instinctual. Both are given to contemplation, but the two can drive each other to frustrated tears trying to debate the results.

White//Blue - Preparation
White and Blue both value good planning, sound strategy, and intelligent thought. White and Blue are both out to improve the world and they've got plans (in triplicate) to do so. Like White and Green, White and Blue believe in a better world than the one they've been given, and unlike White and Green, White and Blue often agree with each other as to what that world looks like.

Methods are, once again, the big conflict between White and Blue. While White values planning and caution, White also knows the value of decisive action and sacrifice. Blue, on the other hand, would rather think their plan through until they come up with a brilliant solution that solves everything in one stroke of elegance, which can often drive White up a wall when time is of the essence.

Blue//Black - Power
In a way, Blue and Black are some of the most similar colors; both of them are, ultimately, after power. Blue wants the power to perfect the world around it, and Black wants power to ensure its own freedom and safety, but at the end of the day it's all about how much of it you can bring to bear. Blue and Black both appreciate that sometimes, the end justifies the means and that someone has to have the power in order to keep it from running around unchecked.

Where Blue and Black run into trouble with each other is what they use that power for. Blue is, at its heart, altruistic. It wants to help with all that knowledge and power it's been gathering. Black, on the other hand, is unapologetic in its selfishness, and hoards any scrap of power or knowledge that comes its way unless sharing would be of greater profit. When Black acts decisively to secure its own comfort, Blue hesitates, seeking some kind of greater good, and this difference in ideals can make the two uneasy with each other.

Black//Red - Freedom
Black and Red both appreciate the idea of freedom and, in a way, they both savor the idea of living up to one's feelings. Black's personal freedom and gratification are, of course, paramount to it, while Red tends to champion others in its crusades, but the two of them can shake hands and respect an honest desire to do something.

However, Red can sometimes get driven to bloody tears by the fact that Black can be a damn cold fish. Black often denies or represses emotions that are inconvenient to it and can sometimes betray even close friends and loved ones, which looks insane from Red's point of view. Worse, Black doesn't care about the freedoms of others, and more than one conflict between Black and Red has broken out because Black was enslaving and degrading people that Red felt attached to - or simply because Red dislikes the idea of slavery in general.

Red//Green - Intuition
Red and Green both respect their feelings. Both Red and Green trust in the instincts that they were born with and act on their feelings as expressions of what they should be doing. Both Red and Green believe that denying these feelings and instincts is among the most foolish things a being could ever do.

Again, methods and interpretations cause the most conflicts between Red and Green. Red tends to be proactive and to act upon its feelings as immediately as possible, while Green has a tendency to reflect and contemplate its emotions and instincts in an attempt to cause personal growth. Thus, while Red is charging ahead, Green sometimes hangs back, which can cause both to see the other as foolish and generates misunderstandings. On the whole, however, Red and Green are probably the color pair that cooperates with greatest ease, and the two make natural allies.

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, ignoring its origins in the card game (which I at one point played, so I'm not saying it's bad or anything, just that it isn't really relevant), I think this is very well put together. Frankly, I think that it is easier to understand and agree on than the alignment system used, simply because the terms are more easily defined from a more neutral (as in unbiased) standpoint.

I'm still trying to figure out what my Color Alignment would be. I'm not sure if I have a 2nd secondary color or not - My Primary is Red, and my Secondary is White (or maybe the other way around. The problem here is that it is the ideal in both cases, not just method). The greatest "enemy" color conflicts for me are White versus Black (I strongly believe in Good versus evil, for example) and Red versus Blue (I am very much on the emotion side of the emotion versus thought battle). The irony is that if I do have another secondary color, it is Blue - for the method reason. I am intelligent and prefer to have solid facts than to believe things just because I want to believe them. However, while I find knowledge helpful and useful (and in many cases, needed: "Blind faith" in something is abhorrent to me), seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake or valuing logic over feeling are incomprehensible and unconscionable, respectively.

Sooo....
Primary: White/Red
Secondary: White/Red, Blue?
Enemy: Black, Blue (Red and White can't be enemy, as I still can't decide which is primary)
Allied: Green, Blue?

Interesting idea, though.

[Lord_Gareth]

Blue is an allied color to White, so dipping into Blue's methods without embracing them is fully to be expected.

As far as where you fall on White/Red, here's the question - which is MORE important, safety or freedom? White says Safety, Red says Freedom. The one you value more is your Primary, the other is Secondary.

[Korias]

I have to agree... this is very well made. It provides a more ideological based system than the clear-cut morality presented in standard DND, while still giving enough crunch to make it easy for rules.

The only issue I can see is when there's going to be a mixed group, or even mixed alignments. While you covered, this somewhat, It's still a bit foggy.

Let me use myself as an example. For starters, I would classify myself as a Primary: Red and Secondary: Blue. The reason behind this is because while I enjoy my freedom and will often let my emotions dictate the course of action, I appeal to the rational nature in me to curb it and enable me to function in a society with rules and codes. Now, when my actions follow a distinctly Red path, The Blue side kicks in to make me feel guilty and depressed, causing bouts of Colorless action.

The issue when I would try to play a character that followed my specific Color Mix, would that the Methodology of my core nature conflicts with the Ideology of my core nature. This would lead to some issues specifically because the belief in the Secondary: Blue nature exists and presents the opportunity for an internal conflict with the Primary: Red side.

For example, I'll often take the "Brute Force" approach to many things, taking a simple solution to a complex problem. But when it comes to emotional interaction, it's more likely that I'll follow a "Think before Action" approach and plan out the next twelve steps in my head before taking one. And yet, if things go SHTF, I'll inevitably break all concepts of prethinking and just rush into it, which cause a number of issues later on since I haven't completely thought out the actions.

Because of this, would such situations incur a step towards Colorless in some sense?

[Lord_Gareth]

Because of this, would such situations incur a step towards Colorless in some sense?

Colorless is not the same as neutral was in the previous alignment system. A colorless creature is either incapable of making moral choices or lacking in passion, drive, or ideology entirely - see the example of a miserable office drone under its description. Instead, a character with a vibrant internal conflict is just that; conflicted. If they WANT to do this but INSTEAD do that, then they're still both of their colors - it's just that their internal conflict is much more present than, say, someone that dabbles in methods or has two Allied colors.

[Korias]

Colorless is not the same as neutral was in the previous alignment system. A colorless creature is either incapable of making moral choices or lacking in passion, drive, or ideology entirely - see the example of a miserable office drone under its description. Instead, a character with a vibrant internal conflict is just that; conflicted. If they WANT to do this but INSTEAD do that, then they're still both of their colors - it's just that their internal conflict is much more present than, say, someone that dabbles in methods or has two Allied colors.

In that case, how would that be represented? Would their Primary and Secondaries eventually swap places or would the conflict not be portrayed in terms of crunch, but rather fluff?

[Lord_Gareth]

Typically, in terms of fluff. The difference between Primary and Secondary in this instance is a matter of degree and motivation. One must ask:

1. What does the character CARE about? What is their moral imperative?

2. How do the Secondary Colors modify this? If they're not acting according to their moral imperative, WHY?

So, if a Red/Blue character used thought and reasoning to restrain their emotions because, say, they feared arrest or censure, then Red is primary because Blue is only used for self-preservation due to an emotional response. But if it's a character that values intelligent thought as superior (but not exclusive to) emotions, then it'd be Blue primary, with Red (their emotional side) being the source of conflict to their primary morality.

[Havvy]

Main: Black
Secondary: Blue plus half of Red.

Enemy: Other half of red, white, and green.

I see that the world is entropic, and that we are blessed with the sun for an energy source of which be can push the entropy away from us to build up, as long as we do so logically. Knowledge can never be perfected, but it does show what is better overall. We might not know what the perfect plan is, but there is no way that the unthinking history of evolution, which is itself under constant change, has a perfect plan, and even if it does, the fact that we are a part of this plan by default, we can mess with it how we wish. It is impossible to separate ourselves from our environment.

Emotions, while helpful in many situations, should be used for two distinct purposes. The first is the basis goal of action. Emotions usually cause an uneasyness that can be relieved. The second is a sign post as to what is important for survival. But following each emotion without care is bound to cause conflict between competing emotions. It is okay to recognize that you are envious, but to act in an anti-ethical manner (one that inhibits the free expression of society by others) is not.

In fact, as far as the human race (not society) abuses their emotional reaction, they hurt the ability for their own ability to express freedom. Eventually it devolves into a complete breakdown of society, and society enables the ability to express more actions freely than it inhibits.

As far as law versus individuality, a little bit of law allows for peaceful coexistence of a lot of individuality, but even if this was not the case, individuality would be better than servitude under a monolithic system of rules. Society does not think, individuals do. If law did not allow for more individuality, I would be a complete Black over White, but instead, I am a minarchist/anacho-capitalist. Basically, government's only function is defense of property and if there can be done by competing self-defense agencies, then government is not needed at all.

As far as conformity versus freedom, I am with a weird position. While government cannot tell you what to do, each person is dictator over their property. They may make as many laws as they want or ostracize you from their property. People who go against the grain of social thought without aggressing upon another person's property would quickly be ostracized.

As far as thought versus emotion, I have what I said before. Logically analyzing your emotions leads to a better quality of life for those who can think, and anybody can learn to think.

Entropy versus growth has things in a weird position. Savings leads to the ability to take more ambitious projects for which to grow, so that later consumption may be higher. I state this as a praxeological fact.

On choice versus destiny...well, we have choice because we have imperfect information. If we were omniscient, we would have to follow our destiny. In a sense, choice is power, and destiny is knowledge. Perfect power (omnipotence) leads to no destiny, minus which limiting factors you decide for yourself while perfect knowledge (omniscience) leads to no choice, minus that which you choose right when you gain omniscience. So, if we want power, why do we look for information? It is because there is information that cannot be changed no matter how much power is gained, and that ignoring these facts leads to less power over the effects that they cause.

(Hope that helps with creating a character with a detailed morality)

Green is life...but life is change, which is blue...and change only occurs because entropy (black) is not maximized...which would lead to a state of order (blue). Chaos is a type of change, just change without care of the end. As such, the outsiders part really makes no logical sense to me.

[Morph Bark]

Considering I have seen this posted twice before by you, what are the actual changes to it?

[IcarusWings]

I prefer the change to Green from nature to tradition and not changing (there's still a bit of nature in this one, and there was a bit of tradition in the previous ones, just not much). I always found it weird how the others were all idealogies while Green was liking nature.

Myself, I'd probably be primary blue and secondary black and white.

[Tiki Snakes]

Considering I have seen this posted twice before by you, what are the actual changes to it?

From a quick skim, I believe Green has been reworked slightly to follow a little more of the fate/predestination angle. May be other changes that I'm missing, though.

edit -

I found this post to be quite an interesting one, in the old thread, but it doesn't seem to have been replied to;

I like this system overall, (and I really like how you put multicolored alignments in there) though I've always likes the 2 trait element of the MtG color wheel. (BY that I mean that you can describe each color with 2 traits, and 1 trait is shared by the color on the 'left,' and one on the 'right'

So, it is, as I've understood it:
.................................................W hite
...............................................Lif e/Order

.................................Green............ ....................Blue
............................'Chaos'/Life.......................Order/Control

....................................Red........... ..................Black
...............................Chaos/death................death/Control

Of course some stuff is arbitrary, like Blue's water affinity, and order and control might be hard to be seen as different. (Think of it as the difference between planning and facilitating a bunch of activities at, say, summer camp, and planning a manditory schedule at the same.)

I wonder: would these be able to be adapted to the philosophies that you outline?

I may take the time later to go back and read through the OP with this twin-trait thing in mind, because I think it's an angle I would use if I was to switch to the colour-wheel, personally.

[Lord Raziere]

The most accurate test results I ever got on my colors was that I was
red/black/blue.

so I guess my primary color would be black and my secondary colors be red and blue.

[Lord_Gareth]

Considering I have seen this posted twice before by you, what are the actual changes to it?

Green, full stop. I'll also be adding a running roster of edited spells and links to campaigns that use the Wheel.

[flabort]

I'm kind of a combo of Doc Brown and Doc Ock (did you read the "extra reading material"'s examples for combo personalities?), who are blue/red and blue/green respectively.

I'd say I'm:
Primary: Blue
secondary: Red
Tertiary: Green
Enemies: White, green
Allies: Black, red

Doesn't make sense?
My primary is blue, ok?
So, red&green are my "enemy" colors, and white/black are my allies.
Then, Red is my secondary. It makes it's ally, black still my ally, while it's other ally remains unchanged, my primary's enemy, my enemy. it's enemy, white, my primary's ally, is changed, and becomes an enemy.
Third, Green is my tertiary. Third in line, the weakest influence. It's ally, red, until now was an enemy color. Boom! green makes it my ally color. Blue and red have already influenced me enough, that green has no influence left.

It makes sense, really. I'm creative, but not good at it, I'm obsessed with making things better, making new things, at moving forward. My room is an utter mess (beyond the teen-aged norm), revealing that I revel in chaos. In fact, nothing I do/touch is even remotely white. It's a rare day when I hand in an assignment. My grade rides 100% on my test scores. Or... 87%. whatever.
I very rarely finish anything. books, sketches (I never get far enough to call them "pictures"), homework, short stories, Lego models, ect. If blue/red embodies creativity, and blue/green embodies evolution, it fits. But, I am definitely much more red than green.

Really, you'd need a combination of color wheel+double axis to describe me. I'd definitely be CN on the double axis...
Yeah.



Good work.

[flabort]

double post to avoid cluttered post, is the reserved post for the three color combos?

As there are ten two color combos, it would be easier to define three color combo's based on the two color combo it is not. therefore, simple math dictates there would only be 10 three color combos...

Want to get working on it, please?

[Lord_Gareth]

Folks appear to be under some confusion as to what "enemy color" actually means. Just as a creature counts as all of its colors for alignment, all of those colors are (currently) treated as enemy colors. That is, if you were Black/Blue/Red, every single color would be your enemy color (while every color would also be your allied color). Hence my frequent requests for some ideas on editing alignment spells >.>

[Lord Raziere]

no, since black is yer primary color, white and green your enemy colors, the secondary colors, red hates white and blue hates green, and blue and red together hates white and green since white-green are super-conformist traditionalists while red-blue are individualist mad scientists.

so red/black/blue would be enemies with white-green since white-green cares about the group above all else while red/black/blue cares about the individual the most, simple.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Folks appear to be under some confusion as to what "enemy color" actually means. Just as a creature counts as all of its colors for alignment, all of those colors are (currently) treated as enemy colors. That is, if you were Black/Blue/Red, every single color would be your enemy color (while every color would also be your allied color). Hence my frequent requests for some ideas on editing alignment spells >.>

if you had Primary Black, Secondary Blue and Tertiary Red then you would have the following:
Primary Enemy: White, Green
Secondary Enemy: Red, Green
Tertiary Enemy: Blue, White
so White is your Primary and Tertiary Enemy, Green is your Primary and Seconday Enemy, Red is your Secondary Enemy and Blue is your Tertiary Enemy.

as for alignment spells it should be something like this:
Unlogic: does 4D6 to a target with the Blue Outsider Type, 3D6 to a target with the Blue Primary Type, 2D6 with the Blue Secondary Type and 1D6 to a target with the Blue Tertiary Type. this damage stacks with each other.

Example: Bob casts Unlogic on Vance who has the Blue Outsider, Primary and Tertiary Types. Bob does 8D6 to Vance (4D6+3D6+1D6).

[Glimbur]

I'm unclear on the distinction between Red and Green, or why they are allied colors. Red is spontaneous, and acts on impulses. Green either is seeking its part in the grand Plan or acts on its instincts without careful thought and reasoned discussion. The first interpretation makes it much like Blue and therefore opposed to Red, the second makes it much like Red and therefore... Red. What is the difference between acting on intuition and acting on emotion?

[NineThePuma]

Subscribing to this so I can remember to read it later ^^ I'm very likely to use this more extensively.

[IcarusWings]

I'm unclear on the distinction between Red and Green, or why they are allied colors. Red is spontaneous, and acts on impulses. Green either is seeking its part in the grand Plan or acts on its instincts without careful thought and reasoned discussion. The first interpretation makes it much like Blue and therefore opposed to Red, the second makes it much like Red and therefore... Red. What is the difference between acting on intuition and acting on emotion?

Think about it this way, each of the colours has two descriptors. Blue has Logic/Clear Thinking and Progress, Green has Tradition and Instinct/Predestination, and Red has Freedom and Acting on Emotion. Green's Instinct fits in well with Red's Acting on Emotion, so they're allied; Green's Tradition actively opposes Blue's Progress, so they are enemies; and Red's Acting on Emotion actively opposes Blue's Logic/Clear Thinking so Red and Blue are enemies too.

EDIT: Just realised the question you were actually asking was what the difference was between Intuition and Emotion Acting. I have no idea how to explain it though.

[Lord_Gareth]

A color and its allies have common ground with which they can understand each other. In fact, instead of answering your question here, I shall begin a new spoiler - ALLIED COLORS!

I shall post here when it's done, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could post in the meantime so I'm not doubleposting.

[ErrantX]

- Clerics no longer channel positive/negative energy to spontaenously cast spells. Instead, a cleric may sacrifice a spell of equal or greater level to spontaenously cast a cure spell on a creature which either shares a color with them or has a color allied with their own, or to spontaenously cast an inflict spell on a creature which has a color opposed to their own. If a creature has both (a W cleric casting on a B/U wizard), they may choose whether to heal or harm. Keep in mind that, under this system, positive and negative energy no longer exist. That means that cure spells no longer hurt undead, and inflict no longer heal them; instead, the undead are affected by cure and inflict just as other creatures are.

I disagree with this. Positive Energy and Negative energy have very mild alignment descriptors. At worst, Positive gains the White type and Negative gains Black, but it's not really important. I say do it like this: There is positive energy, and negative energy. They're independent of the alignment system. Specify under the Gods whether or not they use Positive or Negative channeling. That way positive energy still harms undead and heals people, and vice versa.

-X

[Lord_Gareth]

I disagree with this. Positive Energy and Negative energy have very mild alignment descriptors. At worst, Positive gains the White type and Negative gains Black, but it's not really important. I say do it like this: There is positive energy, and negative energy. They're independent of the alignment system. Specify under the Gods whether or not they use Positive or Negative channeling. That way positive energy still harms undead and heals people, and vice versa.

-X

Then how, my friend, would you hash out which clerics/gods channel what? By domain, perhaps?

[ErrantX]

Then how, my friend, would you hash out which clerics/gods channel what? By domain, perhaps?

By portfolio/domains (when available Portfolio first, Domains secondly). Heck you could use the old alignment system and the description of the God/dess and what they feel about things as a formatting. Gods of nature, healing, home and croft, succor, mercy and martyrdom, protection and defense, righteousness, etc. They'd get healing. Gods of warfare, death, undeath, suffering, pain, evil, treachery, etc they'd get negative energy. I'd say err on the side of caution, and give positive more often then negative.

-X

[Hyooz]

That last bears repeating - any given character's color-alignment is not irrevocable, and does not represent some cosmic force nesting in their soul; it serves merely as a baseline descriptor for personality and methodology.

This bit seems to invalidate this as an alignment replacement. It's certainly nice alongside alignment, but really, this seems like a fancy way of reducing a complex character personality to a block of colors.

At the same time, it doesn't seem to address the problems of alignment. Monks can't be Red, but why? Its the same problem "Any non-chaotic" had. Monks can't love freedom? Avatar: TLA presented its monks as emotional, fun and freedom loving sorts. Paladins have to be part white, and people with black primary can't think at least one or two things are morally wrong, etc. It seems to have all the same problems the current alignment system has, but with additional layers to add to the confusion, and now we need celestial beings that embody Green and it gets all nuts.

I mean, for what it is, it works well, and at least seems internally consistent (from what I can tell) but its less an alignment replacement than a personality test. I totally agree that the current alignment system is wonky, but any system that tries to mechanically represent something as multifaceted and enigmatic as worldviews and philosophy.

EDIT: Also, I agree with Errant that Positive/Negative energy should stick around. I, for one, don't like the idea of clerics not being able to heal everyone. Just those that share a color? That seems odd to me. My goody-goody cleric should be able to offer healing to the evil overlord they just beat to show him there's absolute good in the world or something. Plus, positive/negative energy is kind of a big deal for undead and the like.

[vicente408]

There is precedent for red Monks within the multiverse of Magic: the Gathering. The card Homura, Human Ascendant is a red card with the Monk creature type, and the planeswalker Chandra Nalaar was raised in and still makes her home in a monastery devoted to individual freedom and the development of pyromancy.

I love the Color Wheel, and think it's a fine way for trying to categorize an individual's or group's personality and/or methods without being too limiting or narrow (so long as one understands that there is room for a wide degree of variance within a color or color pair). Trying to force some of the "traditional" D&D alignment mechanics onto it doesn't feel right though. It seems better to scrap things like "smite X" and "detect X" and all that, and just craft a new system and/or cosmology that doesn't try to simply shoehorn the color wheel philosophy into a framework that wasn't built for it.

[lightningcat]

By portfolio/domains (when available Portfolio first, Domains secondly). Heck you could use the old alignment system and the description of the God/dess and what they feel about things as a formatting. Gods of nature, healing, home and croft, succor, mercy and martyrdom, protection and defense, righteousness, etc. They'd get healing. Gods of warfare, death, undeath, suffering, pain, evil, treachery, etc they'd get negative energy. I'd say err on the side of caution, and give positive more often then negative.

-X

I'm using a variation of the color wheel system, and this is exactly what I did for all of my deities, and as my setting has something like 150+ gods, it took a while. In the end, about 2/3 of them have clerics that must channel one or the other, and for the rest the cleric chooses at 1st level. Most of the white and green aligned deities go for positive energy, and many of the black ones go negative, but there are exceptions.

Of all of the official classes, the one I had the most trouble working into this system was the one I had expected to have the fewest problems with: the Paladin. I'm currently not using it pending a better way to make it work with the system.

[The Witch-King]

First--I love the concept--my friends love the concept and we'll certainly be using it the next D&D game we start. So thanks for that.

EDIT: Just realised the question you were actually asking was what the difference was between Intuition and Emotion Acting. I have no idea how to explain it though.

Okay--the difference is that Intuition typically serves an existing agenda and Acting on Emotion winds up creating its own agenda. If I have set for myself the agenda of catching a criminal and I have a hunch that guy A is the culprit, I may choose to investigate guy A first before guy B but the agenda remains the same.

Acting on Emotion--if I get angry, I may want to lash out at someone or if I get sad enough, I may want someone to feel sorry for me. My agenda becomes subverted by the emotion. It doesn't always happen that way but it can whereas intuition is a non-rational resource used to serve an existing agenda. Or to put it this way, I'm having some difficulty tracking down my criminal so I get drunk in a bar, start a bar fight and now I'm in jail. Not my original plan.

Clerics no longer channel positive/negative energy to spontaenously cast spells. Instead, a cleric may sacrifice a spell of equal or greater level to spontaenously cast a cure spell on a creature which either shares a color with them or has a color allied with their own, or to spontaenously cast an inflict spell on a creature which has a color opposed to their own.

I like this and I certainly don't have any problem with the rule change. Back when I played Everquest, I was part of a party and a Dark Elf cleric started healing us. He had a text macro linked to his healing spell that would shout "BE HEALED BY INNORUUK'S DIVINE HATRED!!" Despite really wanted and even needing the heals, he so creeped us out that we told him no thanks, we didn't want him to heal us any more. A Cleric's power should come from his/her deity, period. It should be "colored" if you'll forgive the pun by that deity and their domains, actions and personality. You should be concerned when the God of Hatred gives you healing through the person of his priest because you're being irradiated with his unholy power. It should be a problem for anyone with any morals, even if you decide the situation warrants it. And if the priest of the God of Hatred can only perform such a healing on someone he feels or his god feels some connection to, that should give you pause as well. I like this.

EDIT:

It seems to have all the same problems the current alignment system has, but with additional layers to add to the confusion, and now we need celestial beings that embody Green and it gets all nuts.

Fey have always embodied that role for me. I don't think it's written in stone that every concept or philosophy has to have Outsiders with a capital O to embody it but moving Fey to that role wouldn't take much. Faerie has always seemed to me like it was "some place other" anyway.