Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xenu 09-28-04, 01:30 PM	There have always been two things about the alignment system that have felt wrong to me. One, and I’m not going to talk at all about the other one today, is that it doesn’t make a difference between shallow belief and deep devotion. Does a merchant who’s lawful good because it’s good for his reputation have the same alignment as a holy Paladin who devotes his life to serve the causes of good and law? Does a simple stormtrooper who listened to the mandatory propaganda and does as he is told by default have the same alignment as the evil warlord he serve? A line should be drawn. I suggest a third dimension to the alignment system: Conviction. This axis have three levels, just like the good versus evil axis and the law versus chaos axis. On the one hand we have Shallow, on the other we have Devoted. In between we have, as always, Neutral. A person of shallow alignment might not have chosen his alignment at all. He have simply gone with the flow, following whatever alignment that his nation or family expect of him. If he have made a choice at all, then he have probably done it out of convenience. Good alignments get picked because they give a good reputation in the long run and because they end in more pleasant afterlives. Evil alignments get picked because they can be shortcuts to reaching your goals, especially in the short-term, and because they might make people fear you. If you can’t get respected out of love, then the “respect” that fear generates might be better then nothing. Lawful alignments get picked because people want to be protected by the law and don’t want to run into trouble themselves. Chaotic alignments get picked for the freedom they give. Individuals of shallow alignments are usually afraid to die. Evil persons suspect that their choices will put them in the realms of evil gods, and know that they are not in the favor of any such god. Good persons might suspect that their shallow faith will not be enough to land them in a paradise, but as long as we’re only talking about natural death they are generally less afraid of death then the evil guys are. On the other hand, they are generally MORE afraid of being turned undead or otherwise have their souls snatched away. On the whole, shallow individuals are rarely ready to sacrifice themselves. Shallowly good individuals are sometimes eager to become martyrs to ensure their safe arrival in paradise. But that doesn’t truly count. Such a “noble hero” ready to die for the sake of his own eternal pleasure would run away screaming if he faced a real threat, something that might harm his soul and thus demand that he risk making a REAL sacrifice. Many classic kinds of villains are shallow evil. Cowardly, doing anything to survive, and rather turn undead then move on to the afterlife. Also, shallow evil individuals often believe in ethics of good alignments, but choose to act immorally out of self-interest. Shallow individuals are very much more likely then devoted individuals to switch alignment. Sometimes it’s even part of their plans. A person might chose to walk on evil paths to satisfy his short-term goals and then try to repent so that he’ll still end up in a paradise. Others desperately try to gain the favor of evil gods, in order to gain preferential treatment once they end up in hell. Some of them started bargaining with dark powers merely for power, but eventually became corrupted or simply frightened. Those who start walking this road usually move on to become Neutral or even Devoted. Many shallow good individuals also move deeper into their alignments for very much the same reasons. (Of course, good people rarely view good powers luring people deeper into goodness as a form of “corruption”. But that’s only a matter of point of view.) Devoted individuals are rarely afraid of death. They usually do prefer to remain alive, but only out of altruism and a desire to be all that they can be and to do all that they can do in the service of their faith. It is very rare that a devoted individual acts immorally, from the point of view of his own alignment. Those who devote themselves to evil gods consider these gods to be just and fair, and feel only contempt for the unenlightened mortal world that fails to understand the true ways of the universe. Devoted individuals of different alignments often have more respect for each other then for shallow people. Devoted Good individuals sometimes feel a slight contempt for shallow good leaches and free-riders who exploit goodness for selfish reasons. Devoted Evil individuals normally feel a strong contempt for all shallow individuals, ESPECIALLY the ones of their own alignment.
Aliquid 09-28-04, 02:10 PM	A valid point. I have also thought about the lack of conviction in alignment. There is also the factor of how much the person wants to impose their alignment on the rest of the world.... a LG person who keeps to themselves and does good things because it makes them feel good, vs a LG paladin who goes out and tries to make the rest of the world be good as well. Or the evil person who does anything to make his life better versus the evil person who makes a point of spreading suffering around the world. You could also call the third axis Zealot vs Lazy ;) When it comes down to it though, the alignment system is rather faulty by nature... and well I don't know if it can be fixed by adjusting what's already there. No matter what you do, there will be problems with it.
Sulaco 09-28-04, 02:31 PM	An interesting idea, but what real benefit does this bring to the game? The D&D alignment system is far from perfect and has a whole host of problems - I won't even get into the whole issue of people who cannot differentiate real-world morality from D&D alignments - but I'm not sure that this is a good fix. I can see a lot of a certain type of player using this as another dodge, taking an evil alignment but making them less devoted in an attempt to offset penalties for acting like and evil, selfish ass.
Arrowhen 09-28-04, 02:32 PM	You'd have to apply the shallow/devoted scale individually to both the moral and the ethical alignment component, though, allowing for a character to be (for example) shallow lawful and devoted good. And what about neutral alignments? Can you be dedicated to those? "I'm really REALLY serious about... uh... not being particularly good or evil?" What about the old 1e/2e "Ok, the druid just rescued the princess from the evil orcs. Now how many helpless orphans does he have to slaughter to maintain perfect balance?" version of True Neutral?
Corynth 09-28-04, 03:21 PM	I've come up with a quicky little chart (that I later found out was already a part of Planescape) that makes the conviction axis unnecessary. Imagine your alignment system as a large square on graph paper seperated into 3x3 smaller squares. Boxes should be arranged as such: Lawful Good - - - - - - - - - Good - - - - - - - - - - Chaotic Good |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |-------------------------------------------------------------| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| Lawful..................|..........Neutr al.........|..................Chaotic |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |-------------------------------------------------------------| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| |.........................|............. ...............|........................ ...| Lawful Evil------------------Evil-------------------Chaotic Evil Each box is made up of the grid (made by the graph paper). That way, you can easily tell their level of conviction by where on that grid they stand. If they do a truly good act, their alignment may move up a notch. If they do something equally heinous, then it moves down. If they champion the cause of law, working to bring criminals to justice, they might move left. Choosing to break the laws set forth may move it to the right... Etc. This way is also a bit easier when dealing with alignment changes. If someone's commonly doing evil deeds, he's going to change alignment, and here's the graph to prove it, whereas if someone acts in accordance to their nature, then there is little change.
Thorak 09-28-04, 03:24 PM	The problem with that paradigm, Corynth, is that Neutrals can be just as 'zealous' as any polar alignment. Neutral doesn't have to be a lack of conviction one way or the other; it can be a devout belief that all things must be in balance for the world to keep going.
Aliquid 09-28-04, 03:38 PM	As mentioned above, I don't think you can really "fix" the alignment system without re-building it from scratch... and I don't even know if it would be worth it. But... this makes an amusing philosophical discussion :). So my below comments are simply about the concept of devotion, not in support of changing the alignment system. You'd have to apply the shallow/devoted scale individually to both the moral and the ethical alignment component, though, allowing for a character to be (for example) shallow lawful and devoted good. Actually.. that is an interesting concept when applied to paladins. (I will use "s" for shallow and "d" for devoted). Imagine the difference between a sL-dG paladin and a dL-sG paladin and a dL-dG paladin. Makes for quite the different role play. And what about neutral alignments? Can you be dedicated to those? "I'm really REALLY serious about... uh... not being particularly good or evil?" Well I can imagine a dL-dN character. He is devoted to upholding the law, and it is very important to him that concepts of "good" and "bad" don't interfere in his judgment, enforcement, or adherance to law. He is activly aware of the possibility of "good" and "evil" tainting people's decisions, and makes a point of fighting against that, because all that matters is Law. A dL-sN character is devoted to upholding the law, and basically doesn't think of good or bad... he is so wrapped up in the law, that he doesn't even think about or see good/evil existing. What about the old 1e/2e "Ok, the druid just rescued the princess from the evil orcs. Now how many helpless orphans does he have to slaughter to maintain perfect balance?" version of True Neutral? Well yes... that was rather silly. But I suppose it is possible for someone to be so obsessed about the importance of balance, that they might do that. That would be the difference between a Shallow True Neutral and a Devoted True Neutral. A devoted one would act just like the druid you described, while a shallow one would simply be someone who goes with the flow, or is totally apathetic.
Xenu 09-28-04, 06:36 PM	You could also call the third axis Zealot vs Lazy ;) Yup :) When it comes down to it though, the alignment system is rather faulty by nature... and well I don't know if it can be fixed by adjusting what's already there. No matter what you do, there will be problems with it. A alignment structure can never be really good, because it's by nature is a huge oversimplification of very complex matters. And so on. But while still faulty, a twodimensional scale is much better then a onedimensional one. And I think the third dimension is also a improvement.
Xenu 09-28-04, 07:00 PM	An interesting idea, but what real benefit does this bring to the game? Depends on the campaign. In a simple monsterbashing campaign, Conviction adds a small bit of flavor at best. And so does law versus chaos. It's all IF evil THEN kill IF good OR neutral THEN help/rescue end if repeat Isn't it? :D In a deeper campaign, the conviction system adds two things. First of all, a source of internal conflict withing the different ideologies. Second, a kind of adversaries that is NOT reccomended for immature or otherwise easily frustrated players but that can be very interesting in a deeper campaign. Users. Leeches. People who are really o your side, not just pretending to be, but who make their own success a annoingly high priority and try to manuever you into making it your priority as well. The D&D alignment system is far from perfect and has a whole host of problems - I won't even get into the whole issue of people who cannot differentiate real-world morality from D&D alignments - but I'm not sure that this is a good fix. It's not menat to be a fix, itäs meant to be a improvement. The alignment system is broken at the core and can never be fixed in any way. But it can still be a very useful construct. I can see a lot of a certain type of player using this as another dodge, taking an evil alignment but making them less devoted in an attempt to offset penalties for acting like and evil, selfish ass. Of course. And the truly diabolical DM will let them get away with it... at first. THEN they'll discover that the evil powers arn't the least bit amused at being used. And after that, they'll discover that the good guys are also kinda tired of getting used. The "just use everyone for your own benefit" concept looked SO good on paper, but the road to repentance will NOT be a easy one... :schemes:
Xenu 09-28-04, 07:02 PM	I've come up with a quicky little chart (that I later found out was already a part of Planescape) that makes the conviction axis unnecessary. That's a entirely different concept that have nothing to do with this. What you are talking of is a more detailed mapping of the two regular dimensions, while I'm talking about a third dimension. Your system only define what a person's ideology is, not how deeply or shallowly he's devoted to that ideology.
Xenu 09-28-04, 07:09 PM	You'd have to apply the shallow/devoted scale individually to both the moral and the ethical alignment component, though, allowing for a character to be (for example) shallow lawful and devoted good. Not have to. One single conviction level for the entire faith should be the default. However, what you suggest should definitly be a posibility and would be very useful for certain indivudual characters. Lets say two lawful good priests of Pelor are both deeply devoted to Good, but one is neutral in his devotion to law and shallow in his devotion to Pelor while the other is neutral in his devotion to Pelor and shallow in his devotion to law. The first is likely to eventually ditch Pelor, defecting to some lawful good church, while the other is more likely to eventually ditch his lawfulness and conform to the standard alignment of Pelor. Ah, the arguments these two fellas could have... :banghead: ;) And what about neutral alignments? Can you be dedicated to those? "I'm really REALLY serious about... uh... not being particularly good or evil?" There are two kinds of neutral: Those who don't take sides, and those who take both sides and try to maintain balance. Both kinds of neutral could be either shallow, neutral or devoted. Is your True Neutral character Neutral towards his own neutrality? :)
TheDarkestOfAngels 09-28-04, 07:22 PM	Well, the current system is a sort of "either you are or you aren't." For example, a Lawful Good Character could be the most uptight, rigid, and overly-moral person out there or "the guy" who does just enough not to get in trouble with the law but always helps others as well all are "lawful good" and both could qualify to be a paladin, as long as they both follow the code of conduct. However, I believe it was Monte Cook (I could very well be wrong) who made a system similar to what you're proposing. WHat it was was that a character had an alignment, say chaotic neutral. Lets say this character was extremely chaotic. Lacked any kind of discilpline, hates doing anything related to "the man" etc, but morally, tended to do good things more often than bad things. Might be cutthroat in his or her dealings with "the man" than would be otherwise necessary, but does so for a number of good causes when the CN person gets around to it. In normal D&D, this person might simply be Chaotic Neutral, but in the other system, he'd be Chaotic 10 Neutral 2. the numbers represent how much of a representation of that particular ethical/moral system the character is. For example, a chaotic 10 character is VERY chaotic, whereas a chaotic 1 character is borderline neutral. Though I forget how it works with being neutral. I believe that a neutral 5 character would be almost pefectly neutral, whereas a neutral 10 would be almost good or lawful or neutral 1 would be almost chaotic or evil. But I might be wrong. It might also be neutral 10 is the sort of person who believes that neutrality is a goal ("We must preserve the balance!") and that neutral 1 characters just don't care. I believe that's how the system works, but I'm not sure where it came from, exactly. I only heard it passingly some time ago, I believe someone said that it came from something made by Monte Cook perhaps one of his books of varient rules, like arcana unearthed or something. In any case, I generally prefer the alignment system to be ambiguous as to essentially be less of a dictating force behind my character's exact actions and be more subject to my control on a case-by-case basis. But that's just me.
Sulaco 09-29-04, 10:16 AM	Depends on the campaign. In a simple monsterbashing campaign, Conviction adds a small bit of flavor at best. And so does law versus chaos. It's all ... <SNIP FOR SPACE> The "just use everyone for your own benefit" concept looked SO good on paper, but the road to repentance will NOT be a easy one... :schemes: Well I guess my point should have been then "What benefit does this bring to teh game that can't simply be roleplayed". In other words, why bother adding this to the already odd alignemtn system when it can more easily be simply RPed as a character trait. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat idea, but I think that trying to retrofit it into the D&D alignment paradigm is unnecessary.
Arckon 09-29-04, 04:01 PM	I haved used a model similar to this to describe the devotion of my NPCs to their alignment philosophically. I didnt call it Devoted versus Shallow, but as Devoted versus Expedient, with Shallow in the middle, and reflected the emotional and conditioned reaction to an alignment that is based on principle. For example, a Druid is often described as 'True Neutral' implying a philosophical and moral comitment to the concept of maintaining a balance among forces in the multiverse. On the other hand, we might have a neutral rogue who is really unconcerned with anything other than making a buck and avoiding being plagued with guilt. The former is devoted to the principle he believes in, while the latter is not devoted at all. I also use it to gauge the performance of my players as they play, and think of it as an indicator of their god's pleasure with them. If I think of how they played lately and cant get a definate feel for their alignment, then their devotion is lesser.
ieattrollsforbreakfast 09-29-04, 05:57 PM	Well I guess my point should have been then "What benefit does this bring to teh game that can't simply be roleplayed". In other words, why bother adding this to the already odd alignemtn system when it can more easily be simply RPed as a character trait. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a neat idea, but I think that trying to retrofit it into the D&D alignment paradigm is unnecessary. I agree with you there Sulaco. The point of the alignment system is to distinguish which in-game effects you are subject to. Nothing more, at least nothing more in my games. While its a perfectly valid system, there is no point in adding a whole new axis unless there are some game effects related to it. We can tell this new third axis simply from roleplay. If you removed the good/evil effects from the D&D world, you'd only need to define yourself as Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful. If there were no effects related to alignment, you would not need to write your alignment down at all.