An incremental alignment scale (P.E.A.C.H.) [Archive] - Wizards Community

An incremental alignment scale (P.E.A.C.H.) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
zvbxrpl
08-16-06, 11:33 AM I would like to post a house rule that I've been using for a while. I don't intend for it to 'fix' alignment. It didn't do that for me anyway. It does, however, make alignment shifts much easier to handle.
- The good-evil axis goes from -7 to 7. 7-3 is Good, 2- (-2) is Neutral, and -3-(-7) is Evil
- The law-chaos axis goes from A to O. A-E is Lawful, F-J is Neutral, and K-O is Chaotic
- A player chooses his character's alignment as normal, and the character will almost always map to a point within his alignment during the first session of play.
- If the player does things that would shift him toward Law, move him one notch closer to A for each very major act, each two major acts, or each four minor acts. For Chaos, move in the same manner towards O. For Good, towards 7, and for Evil, towards -7.

Let me know what you think!
Sinaz
08-16-06, 11:55 AM I would like to post a house rule that I've been using for a while. I don't intend for it to 'fix' alignment. It didn't do that for me anyway. It does, however, make alignment shifts much easier to handle.
- The good-evil axis goes from 1 to 15. 1-5 is Good, 6-10 is Neutral, and 11-15 is Evil
- The law-chaos axis goes from A to O. A-E is Lawful, F-J is Neutral, and K-O is Chaotic
- A player chooses his character's alignment as normal, and the character will almost always map to a point within his alignment during the first session of play.
- If the player does things that would shift him toward Law, move him one notch closer to A for each major act or each two minor acts. For Chaos, move in the same manner towards O. For Good, towards 1, and for Evil, towards 15.

Let me know what you think!

I've been getting a lot of flack in other threads where I argue that alignment doesn't need to be fixed... but I like this solution.

If I may... here are some suggestions based on a similar idea...

1 - why not just use a scale of -7 thru 7? Negative is evil, positive is good. And the same for Law vs Chaos. It just seems easier to track... like you could make 2 little rulers on the sheet and put a bullet over them (or just write the numbers.) It just seems like an easier way to track it.

2 - what if the scale had bonuses tacked on to it for alignment based powers. For instance, let's say that as long as a LG Paladin has both scores in the positive, he can use his powers. If either drops below 1, then his powers are stripped. For each scale that is above 3, he gains +1 to his powers. And for each scale maxed out, he gains an additional +1 to his powers. So a LG Paladin with his scales at 4/5 gets +2, at 7/7 he is "exhaulted" and gets +4. If that's too powerful, then I might suggest putting a -2 penalty at scores below 3, no bonus or penalty at all for scores above 3, and +1 per score maxed out.

This system would be cool, because you could add or subtract 1 point for small moral infractions, and it wouldn't be so devistating... thus reflecting the grey areas of morality. A paladin might lose one point for failing to show mercy to a helpless foe, a small enough penalty that the he doesn't completely fall from his god's grace, and less of a sting to the ego so that the player may not feel as adamant to argue against the consequences, but accept them.
Millennium
08-16-06, 12:21 PM 1 - why not just use a scale of -7 thru 7? Negative is evil, positive is good. And the same for Law vs Chaos. It just seems easier to track... like you could make 2 little rulers on the sheet and put a bullet over them (or just write the numbers.) It just seems like an easier way to track it.
The main problem I see with this is that it makes it possible for someone at point (0,0) to oscillate between all nine alignments very quickly. If Neutrality has its own area on the scale, rather than just a point, this is reduced: you can oscillate between four alignments by hovering at the proper points (for example, LG/NG/N/LN at point (4,4) but this much rapid switching might be considered somewhat realistic, while going between all nine is definitely not.

The other thing to keep in mind is that when N is just one point on the scale, rather than the middle range, it excludes a common interpretation of Neutrality: someone who has definite leanings toward a concept, but is not so strongly committed that they actually take on the metaphysical bond with that concept that having an alignment usually means.
Sinaz
08-16-06, 12:29 PM The main problem I see with this is that it makes it possible for someone at point (0,0) to oscillate between all nine alignments very quickly. If Neutrality has its own area on the scale, rather than just a point, this is reduced: you can oscillate between four alignments by hovering at the proper points (for example, LG/NG/N/LN at point (4,4) but this much rapid switching might be considered somewhat realistic, while going between all nine is definitely not.

The other thing to keep in mind is that when N is just one point on the scale, rather than the middle range, it excludes a common interpretation of Neutrality: someone who has definite leanings toward a concept, but is not so strongly committed that they actually take on the metaphysical bond with that concept that having an alignment usually means.

Good point. So like, -7 to -3 is evil/chaotic, -2 to 2 is netural, 3 to 7 is good/lawful.

I still like the sliding scales way better than any of the "erradicate alignment" ideas.
zvbxrpl
08-16-06, 06:28 PM The negative/positive idea is good, but putting chaotic negative would make it look like chaotic was worse than lawful, and vice-versa. I will however do negative/positive for good-evil
Sinaz
08-16-06, 06:41 PM The negative/positive idea is good, but putting chaotic negative would make it look like chaotic was worse than lawful, and vice-versa. I will however do negative/positive for good-evil

Another good point. In my mind, I keep envisioning a little ruler graph for both Good/Evil and Law/Chaos.
Xavon_Wrentaile
08-16-06, 08:22 PM Why -7 to +7? -10 to +10 makes more sense, and gives you a full 21 point range to divide evenly (-10 to -4 is evil, -3 to 3 is neutral, 4 to 10 is good).

Otherwise, it's a nice idea, even if it adds more record keeping.
Sinaz
08-16-06, 08:38 PM Why -7 to +7? -10 to +10 makes more sense, and gives you a full 21 point range to divide evenly (-10 to -4 is evil, -3 to 3 is neutral, 4 to 10 is good).

Otherwise, it's a nice idea, even if it adds more record keeping.

Because the original poster suggested a scale of 1-15 (before he changed it). I was just preserving that number. Or maybe you're responding to the OP's changed post.
AT-AT Assault
08-16-06, 10:04 PM Its pretty easy to define an evil act that moves you down a point (oh lets go slaughter those peasants and literraly bath in their blood), but how would you define a good act that moves you up a point? Also with only 5 points for each degree (Good, Neutral, Evil) it would be pretty easy to continually bounce from Good to Evil and vice versa. How about 25 Points per (37-13 Good, 12 to -12 Neutral, -13 to -37 Evil)?

Secondly we need to Define Lawful and Chaotic. First about this matter, that does not mean you do or do not follow the Law of the Land (thats a matter of Good and Evil, Good will follow the law unless the law is Evil, and Evil will follow the law only if it serves to better his pursuits). What I've always intrepreted it as is your degree of discipline. A Doctor of Quantum Physics would have to be disciplined(Lawful) to attain his position (after all Science is merely the methodical pursuit of knowledge). A Vagabound going from city to city, living off of whatever he can get his hands on would be Chaotic (he has no puprose, chooses a direction at random, gets by however he can). So now that I've got my definition of the way, how do you constitute wheter or not you're shifting? With Good and Evil its pretty easy, but with Law and Chaos its not so clear cut (unless its over the top, most blantant Law/Chaos act ever, it might be hard to decide if the person is or isnt disciplined).
zvbxrpl
08-20-06, 12:35 PM Defining the different alignments really comes down to the DM's discretion. As for shifting, I should probably make it one very major, two major, and four minor rather than my current scheme. Admittedly, that still doesn't leave paladins as much leeway as some would like, but the way I see it, a paladin's gotta have pretty high standards.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zvbxrpl 08-16-06, 11:33 AM	I would like to post a house rule that I've been using for a while. I don't intend for it to 'fix' alignment. It didn't do that for me anyway. It does, however, make alignment shifts much easier to handle. - The good-evil axis goes from -7 to 7. 7-3 is Good, 2- (-2) is Neutral, and -3-(-7) is Evil - The law-chaos axis goes from A to O. A-E is Lawful, F-J is Neutral, and K-O is Chaotic - A player chooses his character's alignment as normal, and the character will almost always map to a point within his alignment during the first session of play. - If the player does things that would shift him toward Law, move him one notch closer to A for each very major act, each two major acts, or each four minor acts. For Chaos, move in the same manner towards O. For Good, towards 7, and for Evil, towards -7. Let me know what you think!
Sinaz 08-16-06, 11:55 AM	I would like to post a house rule that I've been using for a while. I don't intend for it to 'fix' alignment. It didn't do that for me anyway. It does, however, make alignment shifts much easier to handle. - The good-evil axis goes from 1 to 15. 1-5 is Good, 6-10 is Neutral, and 11-15 is Evil - The law-chaos axis goes from A to O. A-E is Lawful, F-J is Neutral, and K-O is Chaotic - A player chooses his character's alignment as normal, and the character will almost always map to a point within his alignment during the first session of play. - If the player does things that would shift him toward Law, move him one notch closer to A for each major act or each two minor acts. For Chaos, move in the same manner towards O. For Good, towards 1, and for Evil, towards 15. Let me know what you think! I've been getting a lot of flack in other threads where I argue that alignment doesn't need to be fixed... but I like this solution. If I may... here are some suggestions based on a similar idea... 1 - why not just use a scale of -7 thru 7? Negative is evil, positive is good. And the same for Law vs Chaos. It just seems easier to track... like you could make 2 little rulers on the sheet and put a bullet over them (or just write the numbers.) It just seems like an easier way to track it. 2 - what if the scale had bonuses tacked on to it for alignment based powers. For instance, let's say that as long as a LG Paladin has both scores in the positive, he can use his powers. If either drops below 1, then his powers are stripped. For each scale that is above 3, he gains +1 to his powers. And for each scale maxed out, he gains an additional +1 to his powers. So a LG Paladin with his scales at 4/5 gets +2, at 7/7 he is "exhaulted" and gets +4. If that's too powerful, then I might suggest putting a -2 penalty at scores below 3, no bonus or penalty at all for scores above 3, and +1 per score maxed out. This system would be cool, because you could add or subtract 1 point for small moral infractions, and it wouldn't be so devistating... thus reflecting the grey areas of morality. A paladin might lose one point for failing to show mercy to a helpless foe, a small enough penalty that the he doesn't completely fall from his god's grace, and less of a sting to the ego so that the player may not feel as adamant to argue against the consequences, but accept them.
Millennium 08-16-06, 12:21 PM	1 - why not just use a scale of -7 thru 7? Negative is evil, positive is good. And the same for Law vs Chaos. It just seems easier to track... like you could make 2 little rulers on the sheet and put a bullet over them (or just write the numbers.) It just seems like an easier way to track it. The main problem I see with this is that it makes it possible for someone at point (0,0) to oscillate between all nine alignments very quickly. If Neutrality has its own area on the scale, rather than just a point, this is reduced: you can oscillate between four alignments by hovering at the proper points (for example, LG/NG/N/LN at point (4,4) but this much rapid switching might be considered somewhat realistic, while going between all nine is definitely not. The other thing to keep in mind is that when N is just one point on the scale, rather than the middle range, it excludes a common interpretation of Neutrality: someone who has definite leanings toward a concept, but is not so strongly committed that they actually take on the metaphysical bond with that concept that having an alignment usually means.
Sinaz 08-16-06, 12:29 PM	The main problem I see with this is that it makes it possible for someone at point (0,0) to oscillate between all nine alignments very quickly. If Neutrality has its own area on the scale, rather than just a point, this is reduced: you can oscillate between four alignments by hovering at the proper points (for example, LG/NG/N/LN at point (4,4) but this much rapid switching might be considered somewhat realistic, while going between all nine is definitely not. The other thing to keep in mind is that when N is just one point on the scale, rather than the middle range, it excludes a common interpretation of Neutrality: someone who has definite leanings toward a concept, but is not so strongly committed that they actually take on the metaphysical bond with that concept that having an alignment usually means. Good point. So like, -7 to -3 is evil/chaotic, -2 to 2 is netural, 3 to 7 is good/lawful. I still like the sliding scales way better than any of the "erradicate alignment" ideas.
zvbxrpl 08-16-06, 06:28 PM	The negative/positive idea is good, but putting chaotic negative would make it look like chaotic was worse than lawful, and vice-versa. I will however do negative/positive for good-evil
Sinaz 08-16-06, 06:41 PM	The negative/positive idea is good, but putting chaotic negative would make it look like chaotic was worse than lawful, and vice-versa. I will however do negative/positive for good-evil Another good point. In my mind, I keep envisioning a little ruler graph for both Good/Evil and Law/Chaos.
Xavon_Wrentaile 08-16-06, 08:22 PM	Why -7 to +7? -10 to +10 makes more sense, and gives you a full 21 point range to divide evenly (-10 to -4 is evil, -3 to 3 is neutral, 4 to 10 is good). Otherwise, it's a nice idea, even if it adds more record keeping.
Sinaz 08-16-06, 08:38 PM	Why -7 to +7? -10 to +10 makes more sense, and gives you a full 21 point range to divide evenly (-10 to -4 is evil, -3 to 3 is neutral, 4 to 10 is good). Otherwise, it's a nice idea, even if it adds more record keeping. Because the original poster suggested a scale of 1-15 (before he changed it). I was just preserving that number. Or maybe you're responding to the OP's changed post.
AT-AT Assault 08-16-06, 10:04 PM	Its pretty easy to define an evil act that moves you down a point (oh lets go slaughter those peasants and literraly bath in their blood), but how would you define a good act that moves you up a point? Also with only 5 points for each degree (Good, Neutral, Evil) it would be pretty easy to continually bounce from Good to Evil and vice versa. How about 25 Points per (37-13 Good, 12 to -12 Neutral, -13 to -37 Evil)? Secondly we need to Define Lawful and Chaotic. First about this matter, that does not mean you do or do not follow the Law of the Land (thats a matter of Good and Evil, Good will follow the law unless the law is Evil, and Evil will follow the law only if it serves to better his pursuits). What I've always intrepreted it as is your degree of discipline. A Doctor of Quantum Physics would have to be disciplined(Lawful) to attain his position (after all Science is merely the methodical pursuit of knowledge). A Vagabound going from city to city, living off of whatever he can get his hands on would be Chaotic (he has no puprose, chooses a direction at random, gets by however he can). So now that I've got my definition of the way, how do you constitute wheter or not you're shifting? With Good and Evil its pretty easy, but with Law and Chaos its not so clear cut (unless its over the top, most blantant Law/Chaos act ever, it might be hard to decide if the person is or isnt disciplined).
zvbxrpl 08-20-06, 12:35 PM	Defining the different alignments really comes down to the DM's discretion. As for shifting, I should probably make it one very major, two major, and four minor rather than my current scheme. Admittedly, that still doesn't leave paladins as much leeway as some would like, but the way I see it, a paladin's gotta have pretty high standards.