Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Archon of Light 05-30-07, 05:56 AM	For years, I thought a system like this would have to be more complex. But while writing up some house rules for my upcoming online campaign, I came up with this simple idea. I'm not going to get into the 'how' or 'why' of judging alignment actions. It's irrelevant how you choose to do that yourself. But the system itself is so elegant in it's simplicity, I have to wonder if anyone else has thought of it before. Let me know what you think and see if it makes sense to you. Maybe someone will think of something that I didn't already... In this campaign, alignment will be tracked using alignment tokens for each of the four basic aspects: Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil. The more tokens a character has, the stronger his affinity is in that given alignment. Opposite alignment tokens will cancel each other out, removing them both from the record sheet instead. Thus, a character will never have both Good and Evil tokens, or both Law and Chaos tokens. Each character begins with 3 tokens for each aspect that can be represented by his alignment. So a chaotic good character, for example, will begin with 3 Chaotic and 3 Good tokens. A lawful neutral character, however, will only have 3 Lawful tokens. The Neutral alignment is not measured with tokens, but by a lack of others along the corresponding axis. Whenever a character commits a strong act or portrays a critical behavior that is characteristic of a certain alignment trait, he receives a token for that particular alignment. If he has an opposing alignment token, then they both cancel each other and are removed from his sheet. Otherwise, the character keeps the token. A character can only have up to 5 tokens of each kind, for a maximum of 10. If a character does not possess a token for either Law or Chaos, or for Good or Evil, then his alignment switches to Neutral for that particular aspect. If a character collects 3 of the same tokens, however, then his alignment shifts to that of the tokens acquired. Thus, a Neutral Good character with 2 Chaotic tokens is still Neutral Good. But if he collects a third Chaotic token, then he becomes Chaotic Good. Example: Geoff the rogue begins as a Neutral Good character, so he begins with 3 Good tokens. Early in his career, he cannot resist the temptation to steal some coins off one of his fellow party members so he can buy a nice dagger for himself. This selfish act earns him an Evil token, which simply removes one of his Good ones. He still has 2 Good tokens and is still Neutral Good, but already on the dishonest path. Later on, the DM notices that Geoff is always taking the added time and effort to clean his blade and ensure that it is well oiled and sharpened. In fact, he makes it a point of taking care of all his equipment and tools in a similar manner. The DM decides that this organized and meticulous behavior is a Lawful trait, so he gives Geoff the appropriate token. This gives Geoff his first Lawful token, but he would need to gain two more before it affects his alignment. The next day, Geoff is charged with scouting ahead into the forest and leading the way for the party. Geoff has no idea where he’s heading, but he doesn’t want the others to know it. So he picks a random direction instead and hopes for the best. This earns him a Chaos token, which cancels the Lawful token he just gained, and both are removed from his sheet. So far, it seems Geoff’s player is roleplaying his Neutral Good alignment adequately. If he continues stealing from the party or acting with more selfish behaviors, he might turn True Neutral on his way to becoming Neutral Evil. Some less selfish acts will keep him from straying down the non-good path, but it won’t appease the party members if they find out that he’s been taking advantage of their unguarded purses.
ajb47 06-05-07, 12:05 PM	Well, I like it, but that may be because most of my players put one thing on their sheets and then no longer think about it. I think you really need to have your players buy in on this idea, though, before implementing it. Also, how did you arrive at 3 to start and 5 max? AJ
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 02:29 PM	And here I had almost forgotten I even wrote this! Thankful for someone's reply, at last... Well, I like it, but that may be because most of my players put one thing on their sheets and then no longer think about it. I think you really need to have your players buy in on this idea, though, before implementing it. Also, how did you arrive at 3 to start and 5 max? AJ For players as you described, you NEED to implement something like this. This is not a mechanic designed to give players an extra set of tools or advantages for their characters. It's a teaching instrument intended to keep them focused and more honest about their roleplaying habits. Their approval is not required, but do make them understand how it works. Alignment shifting shouldn't be looked at as a bad thing, unless the shifts are occurring frequently. Sometimes when we first envision a character before we begin playing him, he seems like a totally different version. We may want him to be Chaotic Good, because that is a favorite alignment to play. But through the course of play and by his own actions, it appears that his Chaotic side is not nearly as strong and he's more often the Neutral Good person. That's not a punishment; it's just a correction. The reason they start at 3 is because that is dead center on the scale of 1-5. The character has not proven he is ultimately Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. Starting in the middle is like sitting the player on the fence and seeing whether he stays on the fence or if he jumps down to one side or another. It's not meant to be a linear measure of how much greater someone is in one aspect or another. A person with 5 Good points has no special benefit or advantage over someone with only 1 Good point. They're both still Good, but the person with 1 Good point has done some bad things he may not be proud of. If tempted further, he may stop being a Good person unless he can redeem himself by his actions. Now the reason for the 5 max is because I wanted to keep it simple and realistic. Losing two points from the center (3) is the farthest you can drop before changing your alignment. Thus, two points higher should be the maximum you can gain. It doesn't matter if you spent a lifetime of doing Good deeds. An Evil act will still bring you down the same path and is never excusable. This works both ways on every axis.
ajb47 06-05-07, 03:23 PM	And here I had almost forgotten I even wrote this! Thankful for someone's reply, at last... It's only been a week, hasn't it? :P I actually saw the link in your sig on one of your RHoD Magic Item conversion threads (which are excellent, BTW). For players as you described, you NEED to implement something like this. This is not a mechanic designed to give players an extra set of tools or advantages for their characters. It's a teaching instrument intended to keep them focused and more honest about their roleplaying habits. Their approval is not required, but do make them understand how it works. OK, but then there could be a problem where the players' beliefs about their alignment differ from the DM's. And the players (especially in that situation) could feel it is a punishment of some kind. I actually found this thread at the right time because I am looking for a way to deal with alignment a little better. A couple of my players have been with me since the red box and I'm not sure they have actually read the alignment section since 1st edition. The others came on board for 2nd edition and I'm not sure they have read it since then either. I like how this tracking system of yours also shows that one act does not shift alignment, but a series of them will. AJ
TheAnthroDM 06-05-07, 04:01 PM	I like it, but two things. Stealing is not evil by nature, it's chaotic by nature he should have gotten a Chaos token. Picking a random direction on a path is not chaotic. Nor is hiding it from his allies. Please don't confused chaos with stupidity, most things that are random are stupid rather than chaotic, however in this situation it is neither. EDIT: I would also replace the word token, with point. Thanks.
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 04:55 PM	It's only been a week, hasn't it? :P I actually saw the link in your sig on one of your RHoD Magic Item conversion threads (which are excellent, BTW). Thank you. I tend to write a lot (can't you tell?), so a week without responding to something I wrote seems like a long time to me. :D OK, but then there could be a problem where the players' beliefs about their alignment differ from the DM's. And the players (especially in that situation) could feel it is a punishment of some kind. And this is where you'll need to come together as a group and discuss how you are going to approach it. When it comes to determining IF you are going to implement such a system, that doesn't necessarily involve the players to give their consent. That's like asking the class what they want to do next; learn a subject or go to recess. If you're fortunate enough to have one of those eager, enthusiatic, special classes, you'll be proud when they uninimously vote to do more work to better themselves. Don't be surprised if your 'class' isn't one of those (and by the sound of it, they don't strike me as the self-disciplined type). If you do implement this tactic, then you should feel free to open the discussion for interpreting certain actions. Alignment is such a fickle topic that you'll want to make sure everyone is on the same page together. When you make a ruling, explain why you made the decision. At the same time, be open for discussion and listen to other ideas. If you want a really good thread to point to, check my signature again. There's another thread I wrote that will help immensely with this. I actually found this thread at the right time because I am looking for a way to deal with alignment a little better. A couple of my players have been with me since the red box and I'm not sure they have actually read the alignment section since 1st edition. The others came on board for 2nd edition and I'm not sure they have read it since then either. I like how this tracking system of yours also shows that one act does not shift alignment, but a series of them will. AJ That is exactly what it is intended to do. This is not a thread about HOW to determine your alignment actions, but simply a tool on how to track it based on how YOU and your group interprets them. Truly, that is the best way to handle this idea, much like everything else in the rules: at your personal discretion. I hope it helps out.
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 05:08 PM	Stealing is not evil by nature, it's chaotic by nature he should have gotten a Chaos token. <snip> I wasn't going to get into this kind of debate for this thread, but let me make this abundantly clear: Before you choose to debate with me on the topic of alignments, I'll ask you to read my previous thread on ROLEPLAYING ALIGNMENTS. You can find the link in my signature. But the interesting thing here is that it appears I may have contradicted myself because in that older thread, I also stated that stealing was a Chaotic act. For the most part, at least. You see, the key element you forget is the all-important ingredient: the factor of motivation. A person who steals for the sake of taking something away from someone is Chaotic. A person who steals to gain something for himself is Evil. A person who steals from a random person for the sake of taking something away in order to gain something for himself is both Chaotic and Evil. In this case, a party member who steals from another party member is not only taking away from a known associate and a (supposedly) trusted ally, but he is taking it with the intent of keeping his gains for himself. It wasn't random to decide to steal from someone you know and spend a lot of time with, as it is to steal from someone you bump into on the street. Define motive, and you'll discover alignment. EDIT: I would also replace the word token, with point. Thanks. Only if I intended not to use tokens... but your point is taken (pun intended :D ). I like tokens. It really makes no difference if you award tokens, points, or peanuts. But you reminded me to keep consistency, so I thank you. I'll replace points with tokens. You can use whatever you like. ;)
Holy_Beholder 06-05-07, 06:46 PM	Maybe a paladin would start at 5 good, 3 law, and would fall when they went down to 4 good. If they fell all the way down to neutral, they would be beyond atonement. This example has to do with order of the stick, unless you are at number 400 don't read it. Take Miko from order of the stick. She was at 5 good, 3 law(with a nice DM) then she killed shojo, dropping her down to 4 good. She still had time to atone, then she tried to kill roy and belkar, dropping her down to 3 good. She still had time to atone, but lost that oppurtunity when she attacked Hinjo, dropping her down to 2, neutral, and without paladin powers. It was too late to atone now. Belkar meanwhile got a good token for trying to stand in the way of Miko despite the fact he couldn't really fight back.
CryoSilver 06-05-07, 07:03 PM	I like this idea and Ive used similar, but I disagree on how small the number of tokens is. When I used this sort of things, you got the equivalent of 50 tokens. A minor act was worth one token, a mojor act was worth 2, and something like kicking Pelor in the stones and raping his dog would be worth 3 or 4.
molten_dragon 06-05-07, 07:22 PM	The only thing I find odd about it is the hysteresis. For example, one player starts neutral good, and the other starts true neutral. The good player commits 2 evil acts, leaving him with only 1 good token left. The other player, however, commits a good act, giving him 1 good token as well. They both have the exact same number of tokens, however, they are different alignments. It just seems odd to me. Maybe you could fix it so there was a particular number of tokens at which your alignment changed.
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 07:23 PM	Maybe a paladin would start at 5 good, 3 law, and would fall when they went down to 4 good. If they fell all the way down to neutral, they would be beyond atonement. <snip> I knew this was coming... That's completely up to the individual DM, but it's generally a bad idea. Paladins are not perfect. They shouldn't have to be perfect. Not everyone who takes a certain path must become the epitome for them, or be considered a failure. Plus, it's just really unfair to the players. Why do paladins have to be treated any differently than any other Lawful Good character, or any character class, really? They aren't more powerful than anyone else, yet they have the strictest alignment restrictions hanging over their head, threatening to strip them of their mediocre powers that keep them balanced. My advice is to treat paladins like everyone else. Let them prove that they are Lawful and Good by maintaining both Lawful and Good ratings. If they manage to change their alignments through their actions, then deal with the ramifications of being an ex-paladin. You don't need to place a higher standard for them. They already have one. There's no need to make it any tougher for them. This applies for several other classes, though none have such a strict requirement on both alignment axis. And never say never on atonement. People can change, and it is not for anyone else to decide who should not be allowed the chance for redemption. Did you not watch Star Wars?
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 07:26 PM	I like this idea and Ive used similar, but I disagree on how small the number of tokens is. When I used this sort of things, you got the equivalent of 50 tokens. A minor act was worth one token, a mojor act was worth 2, and something like kicking Pelor in the stones and raping his dog would be worth 3 or 4. Again, that's entirely up to the individual. But ultimately, you're just making the system much more complicated than it really needs to be. Plus, you have to now assign a value for every individual act, and unless you have a clear-cut measuring cup for morality on hand, you'll be hard-pressed to be sure you remain consistent every time.
CryoSilver 06-05-07, 07:33 PM	My cup was based on guesstimating. Helping an old lady across the street was worth one. Setting fire to a temple was worth 2. See above for example of 3.
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 07:33 PM	The only thing I find odd about it is the hysteresis. For example, one player starts neutral good, and the other starts true neutral. The good player commits 2 evil acts, leaving him with only 1 good token left. The other player, however, commits a good act, giving him 1 good token as well. They both have the exact same number of tokens, however, they are different alignments. It just seems odd to me. Maybe you could fix it so there was a particular number of tokens at which your alignment changed. It's not a rating system. Otherwise this thread would be called the Alignment Rating, not Alignment Tracking. Look at it this way. A True Neutral character with 1 Good token doesn't show anything. He simply has done more Good than Evil, which keeps him squarely in the middle for now. If he continued doing more Good, then he might actually be more Good than Neutral. By the same token (pun intended, again :D ), a Neutral Good character with 1 Good token has obviously done some bad things. He's still NG, but his tendencies of late seem to suggest he is heading away from Good altogether. You can't look at two cars heading in opposite directions and say they both traveled the same distance when they pass each other on the way. You have to consider where they came from, how far they drove, and which way they're going.
Archon of Light 06-05-07, 08:12 PM	My cup was based on guesstimating. Helping an old lady across the street was worth one. Setting fire to a temple was worth 2. See above for example of 3. "Guess-timation" and "clear-cut" are completely opposite. That's why I suggested going with the latter. But again, it's your call, and it will be your burden to bear if you wish to go that route.
ajb47 06-06-07, 09:39 AM	That's completely up to the individual DM, but it's generally a bad idea. Paladins are not perfect. They shouldn't have to be perfect. Not everyone who takes a certain path must become the epitome for them, or be considered a failure. Plus, it's just really unfair to the players. Why do paladins have to be treated any differently than any other Lawful Good character, or any character class, really? They aren't more powerful than anyone else, yet they have the strictest alignment restrictions hanging over their head, threatening to strip them of their mediocre powers that keep them balanced. Well, the rules do state that they suffer problems if they ever willfully commit an evil act, so one Evil token can cause them to lose their powers and abilities. So in a sense they do have to be perfect along G vs E. They also are not allowed to "grossly" violate their code of conduct. To me, that would be losing all their Lawful Tokens, but it could possibly include one really horrendous decision. But I am not sure this is actually about the Alignment Tracker idea anymore, so I'll let it be now. AJ
Archon of Light 06-06-07, 02:27 PM	Well, the rules do state that they suffer problems if they ever willfully commit an evil act, so one Evil token can cause them to lose their powers and abilities. So in a sense they do have to be perfect along G vs E. They also are not allowed to "grossly" violate their code of conduct. To me, that would be losing all their Lawful Tokens, but it could possibly include one really horrendous decision. The rules as stated have always been a source of contention for most people. That's why we have so many people on forums constantly creating alternative rules, house rules, supplemental rules, and asking questions about the rules. To me, such a harsh restriction for one class that is neither more powerful nor superior to any other class seems wrong. Paladins should be played as humans (people), too. They're not perfect and they can be just as flawed as anyone else. The only difference is that they should strive to be that perfect idea in everyone else's head. There's a broad line between willfully committing an evil act and unknowingly, or even unintentionally, committing one. Sometimes doing something that is normally considered 'Evil' is needed to perform the greater Good. Too many DMs love to 'test' paladins in this manner, ready to strike down with divine judgement if the paladin falls prey to their schemes. Most often, they will do so while completely ignoring the motivation of the character. A paladin (or anyone) can absolve his actions through remorse, atonement, and performing good deeds. But when the Evil acts begin to outweigh the Good, or the character stops trying to atone for them, that's when he begins to head down the dark path. At least, that's my interpretation and how I choose to run my games. If you want to play the "1-strike, you're out" rule for paladins, then go for it. It's your game. Just in case it needs to be said, this wasn't meant to be a tool for players to capitalize on with their actions. One shouldn't consult his markers (that's generic speak for "tokens, points, or peanuts") to see if he can 'afford' to commit an act and figure out a way to make it up later with a different one. If that's the mentality of your players, then perhaps you should consider tracking their alignments yourself and just let them know when they've shifted.
CryoSilver 06-06-07, 05:05 PM	"Guess-timation" and "clear-cut" are completely opposite. That's why I suggested going with the latter. But again, it's your call, and it will be your burden to bear if you wish to go that route. I don't use alignment at all, most of the time now :)
ajb47 06-06-07, 08:28 PM	To me, such a harsh restriction for one class that is neither more powerful nor superior to any other class seems wrong. Paladins should be played as humans (people), too. They're not perfect and they can be just as flawed as anyone else. The only difference is that they should strive to be that perfect idea in everyone else's head. I feel that this is derailing your thread about a way to track alignment, so I will not expound in my ideas for Paladins here except to say that I actually do see a wide variety of ways to play a Paladin that should be more or less agreed upon before playing one. And I read your Repository thread about alignment and it is very well done and thought out. I hope you don't mind that I downloaded it and will include it in my Compiled House Rules document that will be given out at the beginning of all my campaigns from here on out. With attribution of course.:) Back on track for the tracker -- do you think it should be the sole decision of the DM for when to hand out a token? Or maybe a majority of the group? I know that could open up a can of worms, but it might work for some groups. AJ
Archon of Light 06-07-07, 03:50 PM	I feel that this is derailing your thread about a way to track alignment, so I will not expound in my ideas for Paladins here except to say that I actually do see a wide variety of ways to play a Paladin that should be more or less agreed upon before playing one. It's hard to talk about what to do and not discuss how to do it. But the HOW is so subjective because everyone has their own different perspectives and levels of moral values that it's nearly impossible to agree on only one way. That's why, for the most part, I designed this as a tool that can be used to fit anybody's personal tastes. You just have to make up your own set of standards to go by. And I read your Repository thread about alignment and it is very well done and thought out. I hope you don't mind that I downloaded it and will include it in my Compiled House Rules document that will be given out at the beginning of all my campaigns from here on out. With attribution of course.:) I don't mind. In fact, I'm glad that people use that for their own games. The more people who use it, the more it helps getting people to think towards a common idea about how alignments should really be used. Back on track for the tracker -- do you think it should be the sole decision of the DM for when to hand out a token? Or maybe a majority of the group? I know that could open up a can of worms, but it might work for some groups. That really depends on the group. If they are mature enough to discuss such things openly... and I'd recommend getting them involved, anyway... then it should always be open for quick discussion during the game. The DM should explain why he's awarding the token so the players understand what kinds of actions reflect certain behaviors of alignment. The player should be allowed to explain his motives if he disagrees, or if he doesn't think the DM understands his truer intentions. If the two don't agree, then get the input from the other players and ask for a vote. In the case of a tie, then it's obviously a questionable choice and you should not award the token. Two things you should keep in mind with this. First, you shouldn't award a token every time the characters take action. If a lawful character is spending most of his time doing something lawful, or just not doing anything chaotic, you don't really need to pile him up with a stack of lawful tokens for it. The 5-point scale doesn't allow for accumulating large stacks of tokens every session, so don't sweat the minor stuff. A player should probably never earn more than 1 or 2 tokens per game session, unless something really dramatic occurred during the game. Second, make sure that you and your players understand that changing alignments is not a bad thing (unless it happens frequently). We assign alignments to our characters before we even get to know them. During the course of play, they may turn out to be a little different than we expected and we should allow ourselves to make those corrections. Just because someone does a bad thing, doesn't make them a bad person (unless it was REALLY bad). Evil people can also do good things, but that doesn't mean they're having a change of heart. Most of the time, motive will define the alignment of a character's actions.
Vaelan 06-10-07, 01:04 AM	Your system butchers Neutrality. I start off Neutral Good. +3. I kill an innocent person. +2. I risk my life to save a total stranger from some muggers. +3. I kill three more innocent people. +0. I am Neutral. I became Neutral because of the actions listed above... People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. ...despite the fact that the actions listed above happen to hit every element on the list of things that, according to the PHB, Neutral people don't do.
jimpaladin 06-10-07, 11:24 PM	Your system butchers Neutrality. I start off Neutral Good. +3. I kill an innocent person. +2. I risk my life to save a total stranger from some muggers. +3. I kill three more innocent people. +0. I am Neutral. I became Neutral because of the actions listed above... ...despite the fact that the actions listed above happen to hit every element on the list of things that, according to the PHB, Neutral people don't do. I agree with what you are saying BUT only to a point. The OP idea is that this is a way to track alignment. In the example above you state on your pc's sheet you are NG. You do the things above and now the DM states you have come from "your" NG to an alignment more in line with a Neutral stance. Now your pc is considered Neutral but I as a DM would put you more in line with those that are evil as a way to help you come to the "dark side" or repent and go back to a more "good" alignment. You are correct that your actions are not in line with a person that starts or espouses Neutrality. However, you could decide that the killing of 3 innocents in a row cause the last to be at +2 or +3 to put you in NE land. It is up to the DM and the player to determine the depth of the fall. You can always state your alignment but the DM has final say. Again with me as a DM, I would take this PC and have visits from the assassins' guild since you seem to cause quite a trail of death wherever you are. This is a bad thing to have you indiscriminately "off"ing townfolk. Perhaps you wish to "join" our little club so that we don't have "accidents" happening with this frequency. You get the idea so I'll shut up:embarrass
Archon of Light 06-11-07, 02:48 PM	Your system butchers Neutrality. Not nearly as much as you just butchered the whole concept of alignments. Neutral Good goes around murdering innocents, and you think Neutrality is askew? If a player thought this was a legitimate course of action for his character, there would be far more repurcussions than giving him alignment tokens. Such obvious and intentional deeds are just blatantly out of line. It wouldn't matter what motivated the character to do them. That would justify a full alignment change; remove all Good tokens and award 3 Evil ones. This system is intended to track the tendencies of a character when he commits actions that may be questionable. I recommended against assigning different values for different actions because it would just complicate things. However, if an action is so grossly biased that it conflicts with the designated alignment of the character, then it is perfectly acceptable to award more tokens or simply shift the character's alignment as a result. This shouldn't be a common occurrence, but when it does happen, the act should be unquestionably obvious to everyone. On a side note... ...despite the fact that the actions listed above happen to hit every element on the list of things that, according to the PHB, Neutral people don't do. And if you were really going by what the book says, then you also wouldn't worry about what actions your characters make because you will already know what he does before he makes them. DM asks 'What do you do?', just consult the PHB section on alignments and act accordingly. That's how most people think the alignments are used... :rolleye2:
Vaelan 06-13-07, 05:15 AM	I'm going to go ahead and ignore all of the things you said that are either blindly lashing out because of a perceived personal attack or complete non-sequiturs. Unfortunately, that happens to be the majority of your post. :( If a player thought this was a legitimate course of action for his character, there would be far more repurcussions than giving him alignment tokens. Such obvious and intentional deeds are just blatantly out of line. It wouldn't matter what motivated the character to do them. That would justify a full alignment change; remove all Good tokens and award 3 Evil ones. The specifics are not at all important. Replace "kills an innocent" with "Evil act worth one token". The magnitude of the acts is not, in fact, relevant. This also bears stating to jimpaladin (thank you for actually seeing the point of my post). On a side note... I can't help but notice how you relegated the only point I was trying to make to a side note while going off on wild tangents about issues that are clearly unimportant. Perhaps you don't understand my actual complaint. I will state it again. Your system makes people who commit both Good and Evil acts Neutral when, according to the rules, the defining trait of the Neutral alignment is that Neutral people commit neither Good nor Evil acts.
Archon of Light 06-13-07, 04:20 PM	I'm going to go ahead and ignore all of the things you said that are either blindly lashing out because of a perceived personal attack or complete non-sequiturs. Unfortunately, that happens to be the majority of your post. :( Are we reading the same posts here? :confused: Believe me when I say that you don't know me well enough to judge what motivates my responses. I think it is foolish for you to dismiss what I chose to tell you just because you think you know me so well. I can appreciate you taking the time to respond and voice your opinions, but I don't appreciate not being given the same courtesy because YOU think I'm lashing out about something. Trust me, you'll know when I lash out.... and for the record, this wasn't it despite being laced with a little venom. I'll just assume you'll read whatever bits you want, since that's your perogative. But if you can set your pride aside, we can get back to your point. Perhaps you don't understand my actual complaint. I will state it again. Your system makes people who commit both Good and Evil acts Neutral when, according to the rules, the defining trait of the Neutral alignment is that Neutral people commit neither Good nor Evil acts. First,... and this is really important... you need to think outside the rules. The given definitions for alignments assume a great many things; one of them being that players will actually play their chosen alignments as described, verbatim. If that were the case, then we wouldn't need ideas like this one to come into play. If that were true, then we'd also have much more concrete and hard-lined rules for alignments and less ambiguous guidelines for them. I'm not going to get into the whole alignment issue because I've already addressed that quite thoroughly in another thread I wrote long ago regarding roleplaying alignments (it's in my sig if you really want to read it). You want to understand my perspective? I suggest reading it. But more importantly, if we're going to argue about 'defining traits', then why aren't you arguing that Good alignments would never commit Evil acts, and vice versa? If 'defining traits' is your argument for Neutral, then it should apply to everything else. Instead, you're fixating on one aspect but ignoring the more obvious ones. That's why it appears as a side note, and not a very strong argument to me. There are holes in your argument, but then again, you didn't really take the time to explain them beyond a few bullet statements. I addressed what little you provided as a courtesy because you took the time (no matter how little) to offer your feedback. If you don't like how I respond, then don't bother making more posts or give me something more to work with. It's that simple. Take it however you like, but there's no bashing or lashing out here. ;)
Archon of Light 06-13-07, 04:31 PM	I agree with what you are saying BUT only to a point. <snip> My apologies for not responding before, but I meant to say that this was well-stated and was as an adequate a response as I could have given. I should've pointed to this as something I would've provided as my own answer to the question/complaint given, but apparently, I was too busy 'lashing out'. :P So for the record, JimPaladin is thinking along the right lines for this and I wouldn't have said it much better; just taken a lot longer to say the same thing. ;)
Khadmus 09-20-07, 08:25 PM	:bump: Though I have some inner dislikes for a point system (mostly based on NWN), I enjoy this system. Have fun with it.
Roog 09-21-07, 02:41 AM	But the system itself is so elegant in it's simplicity, I have to wonder if anyone else has thought of it before. Let me know what you think and see if it makes sense to you. Maybe someone will think of something that I didn't already... The problem with this system is its elegance and simplicity. If taking a random path is a chaotic act, then doing this five times will make a neutral character as chaotic as the most chaotic creature ever. If he does it ten times then the most lawful character ever will now be at the point of ultimate chaos. Similarly if a character of ultimate evil commits 10 good acts then they will now be as good as is possible. The scale is far too small (unless there is something that you are not telling us that makes it more difficult to change from extreme alignments). Secondly this system is based on the assumption that good and evil acts cancel each other out leaving the character neutral. Under your system, if a neutral character commits good acts then the only way for the character to stay neutral is to commit evil acts to balance this out. Somehow if a neutral character commits only one good act each year for five years, he is now as good as possible, even though 99.99% of the acts he committed in that time were neutral. In order for a system like this to make a modicum of sense it needs several things that you have not included. 1: Neutral actions. A majority of neutral acts should make a character neutral. 36 good acts, 512 neutral acts, and 32 evil acts should not make a good(4) character. 2: Individual acts rated on the same alignment system as characters. To become as good as is possible a character needs to commit more than the common standard of "good" acts. We would just not consider the character who regularly gives to beggars to be a paragon of goodness. If you consider the particular act of giving to the needy to be a Good(3) act, then that is as good as it will make you. You need to find some Good(5) acts to become a paragon of goodness. A system like this would make a character's alignment more extreme only if the act was more extreme than their alignment, and make the characters alignment less extreme if the act was opposed to their alignment. If most characters I have played were to use a system like this, then they would slam around the system like a fly in a glass. Excluding the most extreme character personalities, one day could leave them anywhere on the chart.
Archon of Light 09-23-07, 05:24 PM	:bump: Though I have some inner dislikes for a point system (mostly based on NWN), I enjoy this system. Have fun with it. Glad you enjoy it so much that you felt it needed resurrecting. I thought it had run it's course, but apparently, someone else found something that needed addressing. If taking a random path is a chaotic act, then doing this five times will make a neutral character as chaotic as the most chaotic creature ever. If he does it ten times then the most lawful character ever will now be at the point of ultimate chaos. Similarly if a character of ultimate evil commits 10 good acts then they will now be as good as is possible. The scale is far too small (unless there is something that you are not telling us that makes it more difficult to change from extreme alignments). This is good feedback for me because it shows what someone else is getting from what I wrote. It seems to me that I have failed to explain a few things more fully. But now that it has been brought to my attention, let me expand on a few ideas and concerns. First, let me be very blunt with your analysis. If an Evil person commits 10 Good acts, why shouldn't they be Good? More to the point, why should they still be Evil?? The whole point of tracking one's alignment through their actions is to determine if they are staying true to their alignment in the first place, while still allowing some leeway for exceptions. More importantly, it also provides an accurate account of the character's tendencies and helps to determine which alignment really is the best fit after the initial conception of the character in question. The 5-point scale is made deliberately small for two reasons. One is simplicity, but it only works if you take into account the second reason; abstract. This is not intended to record every action and motive a character makes throughout his gaming career. Many of the minor incidents should be largely ignored. You should focus only on the stronger, more defining moments when alignment really becomes a factor. I know I haven't really provided a more pronounced way to do this, but if I did, it certainly wouldn't fit on a thread in a forum. That kind of undertaking would require it's own document with more than a few pages dedicated to that topic. Secondly this system is based on the assumption that good and evil acts cancel each other out leaving the character neutral. Under your system, if a neutral character commits good acts then the only way for the character to stay neutral is to commit evil acts to balance this out. Somehow if a neutral character commits only one good act each year for five years, he is now as good as possible, even though 99.99% of the acts he committed in that time were neutral. In order for a system like this to make a modicum of sense it needs several things that you have not included. 1: Neutral actions. A majority of neutral acts should make a character neutral. 36 good acts, 512 neutral acts, and 32 evil acts should not make a good(4) character. 2: Individual acts rated on the same alignment system as characters. To become as good as is possible a character needs to commit more than the common standard of "good" acts. We would just not consider the character who regularly gives to beggars to be a paragon of goodness. If you consider the particular act of giving to the needy to be a Good(3) act, then that is as good as it will make you. You need to find some Good(5) acts to become a paragon of goodness. Interesting points, but now answer me these, if you can. 1. Define a Neutral Action. Neutral is really the absence or disregard of an alignment preference, and in reality, it is not so easy to maintain unbiased about everything. Sometimes, whether they like it or not, a person who wishes to remain Neutral must pick one side over another. But at the same time, a DM should allow some amount of freedom for Neutrals to act as they feel is appropriate for their best interests. Always consider the motive behind such actions, and remember to focus only on the larger events while ignoring the minor ones. 2. Does every 'Good' character need to be as Good as possible? Of course not. And this also applies to any other alignment. There is nothing in this system that defines how Good one person is from any other, nor does their need to be. A 'Good' character with 5 tokens is just as 'Good' as a character with only 1. There's no benefit to having more tokens than someone else, just as there is no penalty for having fewer. It's not a race, and there's no prize for getting the most tokens. It simply works as a tool to monitor your character's alignment tendencies to help keeping in character and deciding when changes might be necessary. A system like this would make a character's alignment more extreme only if the act was more extreme than their alignment, and make the characters alignment less extreme if the act was opposed to their alignment. If most characters I have played were to use a system like this, then they would slam around the system like a fly in a glass. Excluding the most extreme character personalities, one day could leave them anywhere on the chart. That would be true of almost any character IF you were making marks for every little thing he/she does. If that were the case (and I know some people might actually want to do this), then just increase the scale accordingly. If you want to keep track of 10 tokens, 25 tokens, or even 100 tokens at a time, then be my guest. Just don't expect it to be so simple anymore, and expect your games to grind to a halt as you debate the alignment of every move made and word spoken by every character in the group. That's not what this is about. The bottom line is, if you are playing your character in close accordance to your chosen alignment, then it's most likely you'll never see an alignment shift anyway. But, on the other hand, if you think your character would be bouncing all over the alignment chart, then you'd probably just be better off ignoring alignment rules altogether... or maybe you already are. I have a feeling that I should probably get started on that document now.
Roog 09-23-07, 11:14 PM	First, let me be very blunt with your analysis. If an Evil person commits 10 Good acts, why shouldn't they be Good? More to the point, why should they still be Evil?? Because that is not what a change from evil to good is. An evil character is one with a willingness to commit evil acts (and has already committed evil acts). Unless an evil character's motivation changes (for example by repenting and changing their actions) they remain evil. Anyone can justify good acts to themselves, so doing a few of them does not necessarily change the character inside. The whole point of tracking one's alignment through their actions is to determine if they are staying true to their alignment in the first place, while still allowing some leeway for exceptions. More importantly, it also provides an accurate account of the character's tendencies and helps to determine which alignment really is the best fit after the initial conception of the character in question. Your system does track the character's actions, but exceptions should not be handled this way. A good character who preforms the occasional evil act when its to their advantage (and does not feel guilt about them afterwards) is not a good character - they are an evil (or neutral) character who acts good, and is likely to be judged as good by a insufficiently perceptive observer. The 5-point scale is made deliberately small for two reasons. One is simplicity, but it only works if you take into account the second reason; abstract. This is not intended to record every action and motive a character makes throughout his gaming career. Many of the minor incidents should be largely ignored. You should focus only on the stronger, more defining moments when alignment really becomes a factor. I know I haven't really provided a more pronounced way to do this, but if I did, it certainly wouldn't fit on a thread in a forum. That kind of undertaking would require it's own document with more than a few pages dedicated to that topic. Yes, your examples were of minor events, which gave the impression that this scale was like that. The problem with that is: whatever size event it takes to change alignment, it takes the same size event to change in the other direction. This means that you could have three characters good(4), neutral(0), and evil(4), the three characters all perform the same actions: three major good acts and three major evil acts. None of them have played out their alignment, the good and evil characters have committed several major acts contrary to their alignments and the neutral character has committed an unexpectedly large number of morally significant acts. Yet none of them change alignment. Whatever a character's alignment is the actions required to keep that alignment stable are exactly the same - just make it balance. So congratulations, the system you have created to track if characters are keeping true to their alignment tells you that any character who acts (by your definition) true neutral is playing true to their alignment. Interesting points, but now answer me these, if you can. 1. Define a Neutral Action. Neutral is really the absence or disregard of an alignment preference, and in reality, it is not so easy to maintain unbiased about everything. Sometimes, whether they like it or not, a person who wishes to remain Neutral must pick one side over another. But at the same time, a DM should allow some amount of freedom for Neutrals to act as they feel is appropriate for their best interests. Always consider the motive behind such actions, and remember to focus only on the larger events while ignoring the minor ones. A neutral action can be several things. It can be a morally significant action that can not easily be categorized as good or evil. For example a character deciding that they will not sacrifice them self for what they though was most important to them. Or it can be the the filler for your system - those actions that occur but are not worth worrying about in alignment terms. Its not really necessary for an alignment system to do any more than recognize that neutral actions exist. But if you are making a system designed to track if characters are keeping true to their alignment, then you need to allow for the neutral character who performs many morally significant neutral acts and the very occasional good act, because (from my point of view) that character is doing a pretty good job of playing true to their neutral alignment. 2. Does every 'Good' character need to be as Good as possible? Of course not. And this also applies to any other alignment. There is nothing in this system that defines how Good one person is from any other, nor does their need to be. A 'Good' character with 5 tokens is just as 'Good' as a character with only 1. There's no benefit to having more tokens than someone else, just as there is no penalty for having fewer. It's not a race, and there's no prize for getting the most tokens. It simply works as a tool to monitor your character's alignment tendencies to help keeping in character and deciding when changes might be necessary. Unfortunately, your system does judge how 'Good' a person is. The scale of that judgment is how many evil acts they are from no longer being good. A good(5) character is so good that even if they perform 4 major evil acts then they will still be good. The prize for having lots of tokens of any given type is that you can perform acts of the opposite alignment without having to worry about alignment change. That would be true of almost any character IF you were making marks for every little thing he/she does. If that were the case (and I know some people might actually want to do this), then just increase the scale accordingly. If you want to keep track of 10 tokens, 25 tokens, or even 100 tokens at a time, then be my guest. Just don't expect it to be so simple anymore, and expect your games to grind to a halt as you debate the alignment of every move made and word spoken by every character in the group. That's not what this is about. Not really. You don't even need to expand the scale. You have the same threshold for a significant act as before. Just let the GM make the calls to say "Yes that was a good act, but you are already good(3); it will take more than that to get to good(4)" or to shift the PC more than one step for acts that seriously oppose their alignment.
RobbyPants 09-24-07, 03:52 PM	I've toyed with doing something like this before, but I never implemented it. I also thought of doing it in conjunction with a new rule that would create a total of 25 alignments (the idea being there are five alignments per axis instead of three). In the end, I didn't end up doing it. A lot of it boiled down to bookkeeping, and as other have pointed out, differences in opinion. If you start tracking small changes for every little thing, you're bound to get into arguments with players. I don't know if you've ever played Neverwinter Nights or not, but looks like they do a similar thing, but on a 0-100 scale, as opposed to 1-5. Also, you aren't forced to start your PC as neutral at creation. I think the starting values go something like this: Alignment Value ____________________________ Good 85% good Neutral 50% good Evil 15% good Lawful 85% lawful Neutral 50% lawful Chaotic 15% lawful The advantage of a system like this is it accomplishes the same thing that you want, at a finer resolution. So small actions might shift you one or two points, which in the grand scheme of things, isn't much. A lot of those small actions start to add up though. Of course, this is also a lot of bookkeeping, so it ultimately depends on if you think it's worth it.
Archon of Light 09-25-07, 03:38 AM	I just want you to know that I'm really enjoying this conversation, so far. You're actually making me think quite a bit before I give my responses, moreso than usual anyway. :ayyyy!: Because that is not what a change from evil to good is. An evil character is one with a willingness to commit evil acts (and has already committed evil acts). Unless an evil character's motivation changes (for example by repenting and changing their actions) they remain evil. Anyone can justify good acts to themselves, so doing a few of them does not necessarily change the character inside. Technically, a few good deeds is not going to change an evil person to a good one even with this system in play. The transition must play out from Evil to Neutral (or non-Evil, in this case) and then has to play through to reach good. By the time the person in question reaches Neutral, however, some flags should have gone up in his mind and activated his soul-searching routines. Is he feeling a change? Does he wish to continue his current path, or will he find his way back? Your system does track the character's actions, but exceptions should not be handled this way. A good character who preforms the occasional evil act when its to their advantage (and does not feel guilt about them afterwards) is not a good character - they are an evil (or neutral) character who acts good, and is likely to be judged as good by a insufficiently perceptive observer. Ok, you're flopping around all over the place now... first an Evil person can commit some Good deeds and still be Evil, and now a Good person who does something Evil can't be Good at all?? Consistency is your friend. Get acquainted. Yes, your examples were of minor events, which gave the impression that this scale was like that. The problem with that is: whatever size event it takes to change alignment, it takes the same size event to change in the other direction. This means that you could have three characters good(4), neutral(0), and evil(4), the three characters all perform the same actions: three major good acts and three major evil acts. None of them have played out their alignment, the good and evil characters have committed several major acts contrary to their alignments and the neutral character has committed an unexpectedly large number of morally significant acts. Yet none of them change alignment. Whatever a character's alignment is the actions required to keep that alignment stable are exactly the same - just make it balance. So congratulations, the system you have created to track if characters are keeping true to their alignment tells you that any character who acts (by your definition) true neutral is playing true to their alignment. Let me ask you something. How many times do you suspect the average character in your own playing group will do something that earns them a token using a system like this? Because most of the time, I don't see it happening more than once or twice in a session for the entire group unless something major happens that involves everyone. But your point is taken. This system isn't meant to tell players how often they can get away with just acting out of character for their own sake. It's supposed to be a tool to help monitor the alignment trends of your character, and, if used properly, help players roleplay their alignments better. I can't help you if you have immature or meta-gaming goons for gaming buddies, but I understand that does happen. My advice is, if you think this will be useful to your group, then be my guest. Heck, modify it however you want. I'm just passing out free ideas here. A neutral action can be several things. It can be a morally significant action that can not easily be categorized as good or evil. For example a character deciding that they will not sacrifice them self for what they though was most important to them. Or it can be the the filler for your system - those actions that occur but are not worth worrying about in alignment terms. Its not really necessary for an alignment system to do any more than recognize that neutral actions exist. But if you are making a system designed to track if characters are keeping true to their alignment, then you need to allow for the neutral character who performs many morally significant neutral acts and the very occasional good act, because (from my point of view) that character is doing a pretty good job of playing true to their neutral alignment. And this is where we're really going to split hairs now. You have one idea about the Neutral alignment which doesn't fit with my idea, and therefore, this system is not going to work for you. From my point of view, Neutral is the non-biased or lack of alignment that exists as the gray area between Good and Evil, as well as Law and Chaos. That's why there are no Neutral tokens in this design. If you want a system that points towards Neutral as the Fifth Morality on the alignment compass, then simply give points for whichever alignment act is performed. There's no give-and-take or balancing through subtraction. You just collect your alignment scores forever. That might work for you, but it won't work for me. Unfortunately, your system does judge how 'Good' a person is. The scale of that judgment is how many evil acts they are from no longer being good. A good(5) character is so good that even if they perform 4 major evil acts then they will still be good. The prize for having lots of tokens of any given type is that you can perform acts of the opposite alignment without having to worry about alignment change. Again, that is not how the system is intended to be used, but thank you for pointing out the munchkins' perspective. (Not saying you're a munchkin, but you do describe how one might look at it.) Not really. You don't even need to expand the scale. You have the same threshold for a significant act as before. Just let the GM make the calls to say "Yes that was a good act, but you are already good(3); it will take more than that to get to good(4)" or to shift the PC more than one step for acts that seriously oppose their alignment. That's actually a good idea, but it gets into a whole complicated and delicate mess of describing how and why... something I was trying to avoid in the first place. DMs should definately get with their players and discuss what is the best way to use a system like this based on their own style of play. Otherwise I'll have to write a book on how to use it (though I'm sorely tempted to do so anyway).
Roog 09-25-07, 07:54 AM	Ok, you're flopping around all over the place now... first an Evil person can commit some Good deeds and still be Evil, and now a Good person who does something Evil can't be Good at all?? Consistency is your friend. Get acquainted. I have (I hope) a consistent view of good and evil - I just don't think that they are symmetrical. Take a character who has done an equal number and magnitude of good and evil deeds. I think that what determines whether that character is good or evil is how they think of their past deeds and how they (truly) intend to act in the same circumstances in the future. If they have regret or feel repentance for or truly wish to atone for their past evil deeds then they have the possibility of currently being good, without that they are most definitely evil. If my description of good sounds vague, it is because I feel that it depends heavily on internal factors, intentions, and motivations, so a description of the character's acts only leaves open the possibility of being good rather that proving it. Let me ask you something. How many times do you suspect the average character in your own playing group will do something that earns them a token using a system like this? Because most of the time, I don't see it happening more than once or twice in a session for the entire group unless something major happens that involves everyone. But your point is taken. This system isn't meant to tell players how often they can get away with just acting out of character for their own sake. It's supposed to be a tool to help monitor the alignment trends of your character, and, if used properly, help players roleplay their alignments better. I can't help you if you have immature or meta-gaming goons for gaming buddies, but I understand that does happen. My advice is, if you think this will be useful to your group, then be my guest. Heck, modify it however you want. I'm just passing out free ideas here. If you want to use this system to keep track of whether the character appears to be playing their alignment, you need to do something like automatically removing a token every so often (say one per session if characters tend to earn a couple per session), so that a character actually has to keep playing their alignment if they want the system to report that they are playing it. One reason why I keep wanting to pick holes in this system, is that I feel that if I played an evil character (without too large a self-destructive streak) under this system my character would end up classified as good. The character would be motivated only by self interest, and be willing to act without hesitation to sacrifice others to archive their own long term goals. But in order to archive those long term goals the character would recognize the value of loyal companions (with capabilities different from his own) and a good public reputation. Unless the local government itself was evil it would significantly help the character to publicly perform 'Good' acts to build up regard and reputation within the community. Any evil acts the character performed would be carefully considered to advance his agenda or personal power without sacrificing what he had built up. This would mean that has 'good' acts would most likely easily outnumber his evil ones. But he would in no way regret the evil he had done or any harm he had caused, only any opportunities he had missed. In the end he would probably be undone by his own flaws, and if he died before achieving his ends he might be remembered as a hero, but in my opinion he would be a very evil character.
Archon of Light 09-25-07, 04:57 PM	One reason why I keep wanting to pick holes in this system, is that I feel that if I played an evil character (without too large a self-destructive streak) under this system my character would end up classified as good. The character would be motivated only by self interest, and be willing to act without hesitation to sacrifice others to archive their own long term goals. But in order to archive those long term goals the character would recognize the value of loyal companions (with capabilities different from his own) and a good public reputation. Unless the local government itself was evil it would significantly help the character to publicly perform 'Good' acts to build up regard and reputation within the community. Any evil acts the character performed would be carefully considered to advance his agenda or personal power without sacrificing what he had built up. This would mean that has 'good' acts would most likely easily outnumber his evil ones. But he would in no way regret the evil he had done or any harm he had caused, only any opportunities he had missed. In the end he would probably be undone by his own flaws, and if he died before achieving his ends he might be remembered as a hero, but in my opinion he would be a very evil character. Ah! Now we get to the heart of the matter and where you are misunderstanding something. Acts themselves are not definable by alignment without considering the intent or motivation for them. In your example, even though he might perform "good" acts in the face of the public to better present his image, he is ultimately decieving everyone for his own personal gain, which is inherently selfish and evil (or at least, not-good). Being able to recognize the difference is crucial any time you want to define the nature of one's actions. It is always about motivation and intent, not just what you see on the surface.
Roog 09-25-07, 09:21 PM	Ah! Now we get to the heart of the matter and where you are misunderstanding something. Acts themselves are not definable by alignment without considering the intent or motivation for them. In your example, even though he might perform "good" acts in the face of the public to better present his image, he is ultimately decieving everyone for his own personal gain, which is inherently selfish and evil (or at least, not-good). Being able to recognize the difference is crucial any time you want to define the nature of one's actions. It is always about motivation and intent, not just what you see on the surface. If you follow that line of reasoning for your system, then you will need a discussion of motivation for each act the outwardly appears aligned (good, evil, lawful, or chaotic) to determine whether the act is actually aligned, before the character gains a token.
Archon of Light 09-25-07, 09:57 PM	If you follow that line of reasoning for your system, then you will need a discussion of motivation for each act the outwardly appears aligned (good, evil, lawful, or chaotic) to determine whether the act is actually aligned, before the character gains a token. That would require its own thread (at the very LEAST). This thread was not intended to be a discussion about how people should determine alignment by actions, although it seemed unavoidable for the most part. This is about the system for tracking alignment through actions, but the actual application (much like everything else in the game) is subject to the individuals who choose to utilize them. Ultimately, I can write such a topic, but it would just be debated and argued to death because everyone has their own opinions and prespectives on how alignments are supposed to be.
Roog 09-25-07, 10:14 PM	That would require its own thread (at the very LEAST). This thread was not intended to be a discussion about how people should determine alignment by actions, although it seemed unavoidable for the most part. This is about the system for tracking alignment through actions, but the actual application (much like everything else in the game) is subject to the individuals who choose to utilize them. Ultimately, I can write such a topic, but it would just be debated and argued to death because everyone has their own opinions and prespectives on how alignments are supposed to be. I just noting this because, what you have said seems to imply that you want a simple system that does not require discussion to work. Also, do you have any comments on this? f you want to use this system to keep track of whether the character appears to be playing their alignment, you need to do something like automatically removing a token every so often (say one per session if characters tend to earn a couple per session), so that a character actually has to keep playing their alignment if they want the system to report that they are playing it.
Archon of Light 09-25-07, 10:47 PM	I just noting this because, what you have said seems to imply that you want a simple system that does not require discussion to work. Really? That's what you get from what I posted? Hmm... That's not what I mean to imply. I don't know if you're just intentionally disecting all of my statements to find some hidden meaning, or if I'm just not being clear enough. I have said a number of times that communication between DMs and players is a key factor in any such system, regardless of which one you use. Does that sound like I'm implying that discussions aren't required? If you really want a better idea about how I approach alignments, then check my sig for the link on Roleplaying Alignments. Any further treatments on my part will require a lot more depth and work, which I couldn't post comfortably in the space of a forum thread. Also, do you have any comments on this? Not really. I suppose you can do that if you wanted to, but I wouldn't. What's the point, unless you're trying to convey the idea that all of your indiscretions have to be done within a given timeframe to have any impact on your character? But in the grand scheme of things, it's not going to adversely affect anything whether or not you choose to practice this. So if that's what makes it work for you, then sure. Why not?
Roog 09-25-07, 11:22 PM	INot really. I suppose you can do that if you wanted to, but I wouldn't. What's the point, unless you're trying to convey the idea that all of your indiscretions have to be done within a given timeframe to have any impact on your character? But in the grand scheme of things, it's not going to adversely affect anything whether or not you choose to practice this. So if that's what makes it work for you, then sure. Why not? The point is not that indiscretions have to be done within a given timeframe. The point is that if you have a good(3) character who never performs any good or evil acts, this system will report that the character is roll-playing that alignment. If every so often the character automatically moved a point closer to neutral, then only a character who actually performed good acts would be reported as good. A character who (as in the above example) never committed a good or evil act would (after a while) be reported as neutral, because that would be the alignment that their actions portrayed.
Holy_Beholder 09-26-07, 06:10 PM	So maybe people go closer to neutral every so often. The system is good, and if you feel that evil should be easier than good, or that it is too granular, you can make changes. At its most basic, you have points from 5 to -5, with a neutral amount that varies(4 to -4 if you want good to be reserved for perfect beings 1 to -1 if you fell that kicking a dog makes people evil. Then you can make it different, like if good is harder than evil, neutral is +4 to +1, below that is evil.
zzo38 09-30-07, 01:52 PM	OK, but don't call them token, just give a number -5 to +5 on each axis. Maybe +2 to +5 is good, -1 to +1 is neutral, -5 to -2 is evil, etc. It makes more sense to me mathematically if not call them tokens, they are just integers. If you don't do much acts, then it goes toward zero over time.