Alignment questions ... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment questions ... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dragoon_Warrior
01-02-08, 03:22 PM I know this is something that has been gone over agian and agian but I would like this to be different. I view the alignments as a general guideline for a players course of actions and I also think that the BoVD/ BoED are good sorces but not everything in there is usefull.
My question is that I had taken a few of the online quizes about what alignment are you and what class are you, and the outcome has been a differet alignment with each. Now this is obviously because they ask different questions.
I am working on a system of traits (not like out of the unearthed arcana) that you would pick from, personality traits that would then be combined to give you the alignment of your character rather then the player just picking one and then after some game play the DM says "You know your acting more like this" So that things are a little clearer from the start. By giving the players these personality traits it would be a more defined guide for his/hers actions.
I've just seen to many times where other players would bend the alignment they have chosen so that they could benefit from it or flat out change it without cause.
I know that the agruements on this topic are mostly about the black and white of morality and how much grey area there should be but I would like this to go beyond that point. Should I even bother trying to better define alignment, is it a lost cause?
BeyondFated
01-02-08, 03:56 PM Really, I think you're putting too much thought in this. Alignment is only as important as you make it. A lawful character commiting achaotic act is not the end of the world. Alignments should be loose, general guildlines to show how a character is more likely to act. It is not a reason to say "You cannot do [action] because you are [alignment]."

Instead of reworking alignment, I suggest putting less emphasis on it.
Escef
01-02-08, 03:59 PM Should I even bother trying to better define alignment, is it a lost cause?

Yes.

that while it is indeed a lost cause, I think the effort will be good for you, your players, and your game as a whole.
RobbyPants
01-02-08, 04:07 PM This reminds me of the questions you're asked at the beginning of Ogre Battle. Something similar that you might find useful is JulesCARV's Obligation Ratings (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=692478). Basically, there were different scenarios, and you answered how your PC would react in them, each one given a rating. Now, you could do two things with this:

Use it as a tool to help fill out your PC's personality and have it on paper (the easy route)
Try to make a point-based system that would determing your over-all alignment (the hard route).

For a while, JulesCARV and I shot a few ideas back and forth on that thread of exactly how to go about doing it, but it had some glaring holes. In the end, it seemed pretty tough to mathematically calculate alignment. Still, I think it's a good read, and you might find something useful there.

As for changing alignment, I guess people do change, although, as you said, it shouldn't be "without cause". Something like these "traits" (or the Obligation Ratings) could put the base personality on paper, and would at least give the DM a reason to ask the player why the PC is deviating from their nomral behavior. If the orignal PC would never or seldom steal, it might raise questions why they've suddenly become a klepto.
Dragoon_Warrior
01-02-08, 05:03 PM I have seen to many times where the DM has something planned and because of a player acting out some out of game conflict in game through their character or just deciding to be silly or difficult just becuase they can and screwing up the game.

Now my DM always handles these situations well but when I DM I would like to avoid these problems by have the players take some accountability for there characters actions with not only a back story but with a personality that as DM I should be able to predict somewhat there decision and there for needing to rail road the players less by having the same guidelines in mind that the players do for there characters.

For example a player resently was a LN monk, he gave away most of his money to charities and risked his life for lesser causes then the next adventure hook the DM had. A town of plague victems need a couple of clerics to travel there to help and they need body guards for the trip. The rest of the group was ready to go but all of a sudden the charitable and noble monk didnt want to have anything to do with it.:confused:

I was just reading a thread about classes and diping out for optimization and how it wouldn't make sense in light that the class is what the characters job is, how he chose his career and why is he changing it now. Now I dont really have a strong opinion on level dips, as long as it can be justified then more power to you. But character build has more substance to it then alignment does, alignment is just a couple of letters on the character sheet that mean nothing after a while to most people. I just think they should be more important.
Dragoon_Warrior
01-02-08, 05:46 PM I like the system in the link above, not point on what I'm looking for but simalar, thanks Robbypants. I would just like to have some kind of tool to regulate the players action so things dont get out of control. Not so much a QnA about specific situations, more like a check list of importance for specific personality traits individuals have (or dont have).
RobbyPants
01-03-08, 10:14 AM I like the system in the link above, not point on what I'm looking for but simalar, thanks Robbypants. I would just like to have some kind of tool to regulate the players action so things dont get out of control. Not so much a QnA about specific situations, more like a check list of importance for specific personality traits individuals have (or dont have).
I guess either approach can accomplish the same thing. It seems that the most important part is to get some things on paper for the player's reference. Now, even if you try to make the list of traits exhaustive, you'll probably leave some out, so you'll have to be able to think on the fly for certain situations.

Other than that, I guess you'd have to figure out how you want to handle changes. If a person with the "generous" trait (we'll say that's one of them) suddenly starts acting greedy (quite possibly an opposing trait), what do you do? I guess you have several options:

Tell him he can't because he's generous.
Tell him it's okay, but he needs to switch the traits on his sheet.
Ask him why the sudden change, and go from there.

Personally, I feel the third option is the best. The first is a little too ridged, as people do change. The second option pretty much nullifies the point of the system. If you can change on a whim, why track the personality at all? What I'd do as a DM is ask the player why the PC's suddenly greedy. If it's some type of power grab (the player wants some cool item for his PC), I'd frown on it. If it were something like the PC just lost all his wealth by theives and he simply snapped, then it might be some new character development. Hopefully the sysetm will help prevent arguments and not start them. ;)

On a related note, there was a really dark campaign setting I read about a few months back on the boards (Tarnished Sun, I think?) that had an alternate alignment system. Instead of tracking alignment, there was a list of the seven virtues (the Beatitudes) and seven opposing vices (the Deadly Sins). The players were supposed to select these for their PCs. Now, I'm not sure if this left any wiggle room for people in between or not. It seems odd to thing of someone as only peacful or wrathful, and not anywhere in the middle. Still, those seven traits (and each extreme) could be good ones to include in your system.
Dragoon_Warrior
01-04-08, 11:55 PM :bump:
Any ideas for an approach?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dragoon_Warrior 01-02-08, 03:22 PM	I know this is something that has been gone over agian and agian but I would like this to be different. I view the alignments as a general guideline for a players course of actions and I also think that the BoVD/ BoED are good sorces but not everything in there is usefull. My question is that I had taken a few of the online quizes about what alignment are you and what class are you, and the outcome has been a differet alignment with each. Now this is obviously because they ask different questions. I am working on a system of traits (not like out of the unearthed arcana) that you would pick from, personality traits that would then be combined to give you the alignment of your character rather then the player just picking one and then after some game play the DM says "You know your acting more like this" So that things are a little clearer from the start. By giving the players these personality traits it would be a more defined guide for his/hers actions. I've just seen to many times where other players would bend the alignment they have chosen so that they could benefit from it or flat out change it without cause. I know that the agruements on this topic are mostly about the black and white of morality and how much grey area there should be but I would like this to go beyond that point. Should I even bother trying to better define alignment, is it a lost cause?
BeyondFated 01-02-08, 03:56 PM	Really, I think you're putting too much thought in this. Alignment is only as important as you make it. A lawful character commiting achaotic act is not the end of the world. Alignments should be loose, general guildlines to show how a character is more likely to act. It is not a reason to say "You cannot do [action] because you are [alignment]." Instead of reworking alignment, I suggest putting less emphasis on it.
Escef 01-02-08, 03:59 PM	Should I even bother trying to better define alignment, is it a lost cause? Yes. that while it is indeed a lost cause, I think the effort will be good for you, your players, and your game as a whole.
RobbyPants 01-02-08, 04:07 PM	This reminds me of the questions you're asked at the beginning of Ogre Battle. Something similar that you might find useful is JulesCARV's Obligation Ratings (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=692478). Basically, there were different scenarios, and you answered how your PC would react in them, each one given a rating. Now, you could do two things with this: Use it as a tool to help fill out your PC's personality and have it on paper (the easy route) Try to make a point-based system that would determing your over-all alignment (the hard route). For a while, JulesCARV and I shot a few ideas back and forth on that thread of exactly how to go about doing it, but it had some glaring holes. In the end, it seemed pretty tough to mathematically calculate alignment. Still, I think it's a good read, and you might find something useful there. As for changing alignment, I guess people do change, although, as you said, it shouldn't be "without cause". Something like these "traits" (or the Obligation Ratings) could put the base personality on paper, and would at least give the DM a reason to ask the player why the PC is deviating from their nomral behavior. If the orignal PC would never or seldom steal, it might raise questions why they've suddenly become a klepto.
Dragoon_Warrior 01-02-08, 05:03 PM	I have seen to many times where the DM has something planned and because of a player acting out some out of game conflict in game through their character or just deciding to be silly or difficult just becuase they can and screwing up the game. Now my DM always handles these situations well but when I DM I would like to avoid these problems by have the players take some accountability for there characters actions with not only a back story but with a personality that as DM I should be able to predict somewhat there decision and there for needing to rail road the players less by having the same guidelines in mind that the players do for there characters. For example a player resently was a LN monk, he gave away most of his money to charities and risked his life for lesser causes then the next adventure hook the DM had. A town of plague victems need a couple of clerics to travel there to help and they need body guards for the trip. The rest of the group was ready to go but all of a sudden the charitable and noble monk didnt want to have anything to do with it.:confused: I was just reading a thread about classes and diping out for optimization and how it wouldn't make sense in light that the class is what the characters job is, how he chose his career and why is he changing it now. Now I dont really have a strong opinion on level dips, as long as it can be justified then more power to you. But character build has more substance to it then alignment does, alignment is just a couple of letters on the character sheet that mean nothing after a while to most people. I just think they should be more important.
Dragoon_Warrior 01-02-08, 05:46 PM	I like the system in the link above, not point on what I'm looking for but simalar, thanks Robbypants. I would just like to have some kind of tool to regulate the players action so things dont get out of control. Not so much a QnA about specific situations, more like a check list of importance for specific personality traits individuals have (or dont have).
RobbyPants 01-03-08, 10:14 AM	I like the system in the link above, not point on what I'm looking for but simalar, thanks Robbypants. I would just like to have some kind of tool to regulate the players action so things dont get out of control. Not so much a QnA about specific situations, more like a check list of importance for specific personality traits individuals have (or dont have). I guess either approach can accomplish the same thing. It seems that the most important part is to get some things on paper for the player's reference. Now, even if you try to make the list of traits exhaustive, you'll probably leave some out, so you'll have to be able to think on the fly for certain situations. Other than that, I guess you'd have to figure out how you want to handle changes. If a person with the "generous" trait (we'll say that's one of them) suddenly starts acting greedy (quite possibly an opposing trait), what do you do? I guess you have several options: Tell him he can't because he's generous. Tell him it's okay, but he needs to switch the traits on his sheet. Ask him why the sudden change, and go from there. Personally, I feel the third option is the best. The first is a little too ridged, as people do change. The second option pretty much nullifies the point of the system. If you can change on a whim, why track the personality at all? What I'd do as a DM is ask the player why the PC's suddenly greedy. If it's some type of power grab (the player wants some cool item for his PC), I'd frown on it. If it were something like the PC just lost all his wealth by theives and he simply snapped, then it might be some new character development. Hopefully the sysetm will help prevent arguments and not start them. ;) On a related note, there was a really dark campaign setting I read about a few months back on the boards (Tarnished Sun, I think?) that had an alternate alignment system. Instead of tracking alignment, there was a list of the seven virtues (the Beatitudes) and seven opposing vices (the Deadly Sins). The players were supposed to select these for their PCs. Now, I'm not sure if this left any wiggle room for people in between or not. It seems odd to thing of someone as only peacful or wrathful, and not anywhere in the middle. Still, those seven traits (and each extreme) could be good ones to include in your system.
Dragoon_Warrior 01-04-08, 11:55 PM	:bump: Any ideas for an approach?