Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kalriem 02-19-05, 06:48 PM	The current alignment system is to simplistic. It needs to be redone. If you don't agree with me, go away. I will not listen, or reply to any posts that simply point out problems without providing a solution, posts that say I'm an idiot, and that the current alignment system is just fine, or any posts of similar design. The system uses points, instead of an arbitrary “tack on” alignment. You have a graph. Law/chaos is the X-axis, and Good/Evil is the Y-axis. When you do something in accordance with an alignment, you gain or loose points on your Y or X-axis. Where you are on these axis determines what alignment you are. The scale goes from –121 to 121 on both the Law/Chaos, and Good/Evil axis. This is the current system: X-axis Law/Chaos 121+ Lawful Being 101-120 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 1-20 0 -1-20 -21-40 -41-60 -61-80 -81-100 -101-120 -121+ Chaotic Being Y-axis Good/Evil 121+ Good Being 101-120 81-100 61-80 41-60 21-40 1-20 0 -1-20 -21-40 -41-60 -61-80 -81-100 -101-120 -121+ Evil Being So if a paladin with an alignment of (50,75) assassinated someone (a CE act) he would loose points on both the X and Y-axis. I would put him down to (-25, 0), making him a fallen paladin. I think a Z-axis would be cool, but I have no idea what it would be for. I was thinking about giving characters a sort of “Role Playing Bonus” when they reached the extremes of one, or more alignments. This would help encourage consistent role-playing. That and I plan to use it for SWRPG, instead of the current pitiful system they currently have, and those types of bonuses go along with the universe. Here's the current SWRPG version of this system: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=381644
HailSpork 02-19-05, 07:18 PM	This isn't really a new alignment as much as it is a codification of alignment shifts. Also, I think that a 75 point shift on both axes (plural of axis, not axe) is a little extreme. Consider this: The paladin you mentioned commits an assassination without a good reason. Does this now mean that he is True Neutral to Neutral Evil? Possibly, but that would depend on how he acts from there on. While this would most definately make him take a hit to his alignment and risk his alignment shifting, it shouldn't drift so dramatically so quickly. I would think that unless he's done some questionable actions in the past, he should still be Lawful Good, though he's going to need some attonement. I was recently playing a paladin who was abducted by orcs who tried to force him to assassinate another orc. These orcs were part of an empire (similar in style to the Roman Empire), and killing that orc would have meant that the empire wouldn't ally with an evil warlord (which was actually our quest). I know that had I participated in the assassination, there would probably be some atoning, but my alignment would be *mostly* unaffected. I certainly wouldn't become neutral evil. Here's a question though: What are the starting values, and what is the threshhold for neutrality?
Hochiu 02-19-05, 07:25 PM	Isn't this the Neverwinter Nights alignment system?
HailSpork 02-19-05, 07:49 PM	Yes. Yes it is. Also, Kalriem, your link doesn't lead to the current SWRPG system, it leads to this same post in the SWRPG forums. Btw, in NWN, you range from 0 to 100 (so essentailly -50 to 50), start at 85/15, and the threshold for an alignment shift is 30/70 (-20 or 20). I also remember that if your alignment shifts, it actually moves the number further to make it difficult to shift back.
Suicidal Cavalry Attack 02-19-05, 09:07 PM	The current alignment system is to simplistic. It needs to be redone. If you don't agree with me, go away. I will not listen, or reply to any posts that simply point out problems without providing a solution, posts that say I'm an idiot, and that the current alignment system is just fine, or any posts of similar design. My, aren't we rude. If you only want gladhanding, do not post in a public forum designed for discussion and debate. While I would never call you, or anyone else on these boards, an idiot, you should rethink that rather abrasive and rude intro, it shows a certain immaturity. I find the current alignment system, while narrow, adequately serves the game. Most players, in my experience, have little to no problem with their chosen alignment, and tracking yet another series of numbers cannot add to the roleplaying value of any given game. Sidnote: If this is an alignment system lifted from a game, please do not call it "new".
Kalriem 02-19-05, 09:47 PM	This isn't really a new alignment as much as it is a codification of alignment shifts. Here's a question though: What are the starting values, and what is the threshhold for neutrality? Oops. :D I guess I forgot to add that last word on... :D The starting values are (0,0), but if you start out with a class that requires an alignment, you should probably start out 10 points in the required direction. On neutrality, I have no clue. I don't think another axis wouldn't work, so I'm open to suggestions... :D Yes. Yes it is. Btw, in NWN, you range from 0 to 100 (so essentailly -50 to 50), start at 85/15, and the threshold for an alignment shift is 30/70 (-20 or 20). I also remember that if your alignment shifts, it actually moves the number further to make it difficult to shift back Hmm. I had no idea that NWN used a simmilar system. I was basing it off of KoTOR. Also, Kalriem, your link doesn't lead to the current SWRPG system, it leads to this same post in the SWRPG forums. Which is what I meant to say. Fixed now.
Keenath 02-19-05, 10:13 PM	The starting values are (0,0), but if you start out with a class that requires an alignment, you should probably start out 10 points in the required direction. On neutrality, I have no clue. I don't think another axis wouldn't work, so I'm open to suggestions... You need a 'dead zone' in the middle that's considered neutrality, though you might lean one way or the other. I would suggest that neutrality should cover roughly a third of the area between the extremes -- leaving equal zones for each of the three possibilities. That is, if you start out at 0,0, you should go perhaps 40 points in any direction before you get an alignment shift. That leaves an area between 40 and -40 (eighty points) which represents neutrality, then an area of 41 to 120 and -41 to -120 that represents a strong affinity to the alignment. This is assuming that you intended 120 to be the alignment of an exemplar -- that is, a demon should be -120, -120, while a Guardinal would be 120, 0. If you want to make it more twitchy, push the center alignment in by 10 or 20 on either side. That's going to make it tough on druids, though. I do want to mention, though, that there is a difficulty with a numerical system. Why should every action have an impact on your alignment? If I'm a true neutral druid, do I need to commit evil acts to maintain myself as a neutral character? People don't work that way. Neutrality usually, in my experience, indicates simply a disinterest in ethics or morality. It's a disconnection. A neutral person may act 'good' towards people who happen to strike him the right way, while ignoring others. Does this make him good, because the actions he takes are good? Not at all. Alignment reflects your outlook; that is, how you view the universe. A lawful person generally feels that following the rules is the best way to live, while a chaotic person dislikes anyone else imposing a restriction, even if it restricts something that he wouldn't personally do anyway. Your actions are not dictated by alignment; rather, your alignment is dictated by how you see the world, and that same source dictates your actions. I would be afraid to play any non-extreme alignment if there were a number stuck to it, for fear that I'd slide off my number by accidentally being nice too many times. Maybe I should kick a puppy a couple times to get my evil quota? That's not right.
Keenath 02-19-05, 10:18 PM	One other unintended artifact of that sort of system could be the chaotic player. You know what I mean -- the sort who would have his paladin burn down an orphanage and then complain about the obvious consequences. What I'm talking about is the problem of players who would look at their number and say, "Hey, I've got a +100 alignment! I can get away with a couple of evil acts before I even get close to neutral!" It encourages even more metagaming than we already have on the alignment system.
Kalriem 02-19-05, 10:46 PM	I do want to mention, though, that there is a difficulty with a numerical system. Why should every action have an impact on your alignment? I didn't intend for every little action to be counted. That would just lead to unnecessary number crunching. Just the major actions should be counted, not little ones, so killing the BBEG, or preventing a demonic invasion would earn you some, but helping the little old lady cross the street would not. Maybe I should kick a puppy a couple times to get my evil quota? That's not right. No, it's not. How would you fix it? Perhaps add a Z-axis just for neutrality? Eliminate TN from the game entirely? What I'm talking about is the problem of players who would look at their number and say, "Hey, I've got a +100 alignment! I can get away with a couple of evil acts before I even get close to neutral!" It encourages even more metagaming than we already have on the alignment system. You're right. I hoped that my work would have a broader horizon than just SWRPG, but it doesn't seem to work for D&D. Better luck next time, eh? :(
Kalriem 02-19-05, 11:01 PM	However, the SW version still needs some work, so any productive comments would still be appreciated. :D
CravesLove 12-05-05, 02:36 AM	I know this is an old thread, but the idea of a third axis, and how Druids and others interested in Neutral-ity might work while tracking alignment. This may have been raised before, if so, I'm not trying to take credit for your idea. How about an axis for Passion---Dispassion? Or maybe Conviction---Apathy? Whatever the term, the idea is to note how much interest the character has in the good/evil and law/chaos alignment issues. For instance: does the character feel strongly about helping others? does she enjoy hurting others? Or: does she try to keep with a discipline of some kind? does she seem to have a need to break out of (or not fall into) any patterns? One effect of the third axis would be to allow GM's to track actions on x/y but not force Druids and others interested in neutrality to "rebalance" a good dead with an evil one. The neutral characters would need to watch their z-axis, not getting caught up with issues relating to good/evil or law/chaos. The x/y might have an effect on how npc's treat the character, but as far as the character is concerned, its the passion/dispassion that matters. What do you think of this?
Neoatomic 12-05-05, 11:30 AM	I think it needs to be a little more simplified... probably use 2 trackers each on a 100 point scale 0-44 Evil 45-55 is nuetral 56-100 Good 0-44 Chaotic 45-55 Neutral 56-100 Lawful Based on what characters do and how they act they add and subtract points. I also think that they should be racial alignment unless the class they choose is specific. Paladins Start at 80-80 and so on. neo-
Mac Awol 12-05-05, 01:16 PM	Don't overcomplicate things to much... I have been working on a system to both enhance and simplify alignment, and I new really like the idea of mesuring it from 0 - 100, cause people tend to ignore small shifts, so my alternative system goes along these lines: Alignment works on a rating system, which goes from 0 to 20 for both Moral Integrity (Chaos/Law) and Fiber (Evil/Good), so a Lawful/Good creature would have a Moral Integrity and Fiber that ranges from 14 to 20. A Barbarian and a Bard may not have a Moral Integrity of more than 13. A Cleric may not be more than 7 steps away from his deity’s Moral Integrity and Fiber total. A Druid may not have both a Moral Integrity and Fiber of less than 7 or higher than 13. A Monk and a Paladin must have a Moral Integrity of more than 13. A Paladin must have a Fiber of more than 13. A New character may chose any Moral Integrity and Fiber he wants. The default Moral Integrity and Fiber is the medium unless another rating is in effect. CE = 3/3, N/N =10/10, LG = 17/17. This also causes slight changes on how certain spells and features works: Aligned DR and SR: To completely overcome a Damage Reduction or Spell Resistance that can be overcome with aligned attacks the Moral Integrity or Fiber must be at least 14 steps apart, but lesser distance does have an effect; for each two step closer the effective DR (each step for SR) is one higher up to the Full DR (SR) or until the distance is 7 steps at which point the attack isn’t aligned enough to overcome the aligned DR, so an attack with a Fiber of 15 vs. a DR 5/good would only reduce the DR to 1, since they are only 12 steps apart. Spells with alignment: If you cast a spell with the same alignment as you it gets the same Moral Integrity or Fiber Value as you, unless it is cast from an item. Align Weapon: The Moral Integrity and Fiber of unaligned weapon is 10, and by using this spell you may move either the Moral Integrity or Fiber 7 steps, which must be within 7 steps of your own Moral Integrity and Fiber. The spell can now be used to change the alignment of aligned weapons. Atonement: The Moral Integrity and Fiber you can get back from this spell is the lowest possible for the given alignment, if the lose is your own fault. The caster of the spell cannot create a Moral Integrity or Fiber higher (or lower if Chaotic/Evil) than her own rating. Detect Alignment: You detect the medium rating (or 14 steps distance if you are detecting your opposite alignment) or better (worse) as normal, but each step less makes it harder to detect as if aura power was one less until you are 8 step apart, at a less step difference detect alignment are useless.