Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FriendlyBiscuit 11-03-05, 12:49 AM	Most of you have taken at least one of the online class/alignment tests. So far, everyone I've known who's gotten "True Neutral" has also had a leaning to law or chaos, good or evil. Even in an abstract system such as D&D, I believe the Neutral Neutral concept does not truly exist. In a campaign that I'm running, I know a character who claims to be True Neutral, and regularly attempts to steal the best things, like Celestial Armor or even Luckstones, from his fellow PCs. In a campaign that I'm playing in, I know a character who claims to be True Neutral, and occasionally helps a person in need, and despite being greedy doesn't quite go so far as to steal from her own party. These are extreme examples, but I cannot think of a single person in real life or in a game who has truly acted neutral; there's always a slight tendency toward a real alignment. My solution? In an adventuring party, there is no such thing as True Neutral. To adventure is to care enough about something that you are driven to do more than the common man around you. The alignments available to PC classes are: Chaotic Good, Relaxed Good, Careful Good, Lawful Good Chaotic Kind, Relaxed Kind, Careful Kind, Lawful Kind Chaotic Selfish, Relaxed Selfish, Careful Selfish, Lawful Selfish Chaotic Evil, Relaxed Evil, Careful Evil, Lawful Evil Classes or feats with alignment descriptions don't change much. A Paladin of Tyranny still has to be Lawful Evil. A class such as Warlock with the requirement of Chaotic OR Evil still can choose any Chaotic alignment or any Evil alignment, but such characters will also be allowed to use the combined milder version (in this case, Relaxed Selfish). A hexblade must select from the bottom half of the alignments, monks can select from any alignment on the right half of the "grid", etc. An exception to this will be animals and monsters, of course. Their neutrality, or their strict devotion to chaos of any color, is an important part of some of their concepts.
BrianD 11-03-05, 01:11 AM	What about the dedicated-to-balance version of the True Neutral alignment? You see it a lot with druids and such. This system really doesn't have a way to demonstrate that moral/ethical standpoint.
Millennium 11-03-05, 11:10 AM	It sounds as though you're not really adding a third axis, but rather two degrees in each direction on the existing axes: committed (Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic) and noncommitted (Kind/Selfish/Careful/Relaxed). If you were to draw a set of crossed lines with each endpoint representing one of the "committed" traits (as is often done to represent RAW alignments), the noncommitted traits would be at the halfway point between each endpoint and the "Neutral" intersection. Does that sound like what you're trying to do? It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how well it works. The committed points, as I've said, represent commitments to specific cosmological forces. The noncommitted viewpoints, however, represent more general personality quirks. A Chaotic person might be careful about many things, and many Evil leaders are quite kind to their own people (by whatever definition of "their own people" is appropriate); their actual targets are everyone else. I think I see what you were going for: you want a way to express a person's general demeanor apart from their commitments. The problem isn't in the goal, but in the method: you're using a stat meant for expressing commitments to express demeanor. Using an alignment-like mechanic could be interesting for this, but to use the actual alignment stat is like trying to paint an orange when the only color you have is blue. With some creativity you may be able to make some very evocative art, but it's never going to look just like an orange. What you might consider trying is to return Alignment back to the RAW, but then adding a "Demeanor" stat using your Careful/Relaxed and Kind/Selfish axes. Even if you disallow any form of Neutrality in the Demeanor statistic, this would have some real advantages: By returning the actual alignment stat to RAW, you can clean out what sounds like a fair number of house rules. A warlock could keep the (Evil || Chaotic) requirement while being allowed any demeanor, and likewise with the paladin's (Lawful && Good) requirement. Likewise, I imagine you've had to deal with the question about how noncommitted characters react to Detect (alignment) and Magic Circle Against (alignment) spells; once again such house rules could be excised. This is not to say that house rules are inherently bad things; after all, I'm recommending one to you in this post. But they're best used sparingly, because it can be difficult to keep track of them. The more you leverage existing rules and mechanics, the easier it will be for people to understand and get into your DM style. The total number of possible combinations rises to 36, more than double your current number. If you allow Neutrality in the Demeanor statistic, then it shoots up all the way to 81 (80 if you require characters to be non-Neutral on at least one axis in either Alignment or Demeanor. Many of the additional combinations seem a little strange, but could be used to express conflicted, eccentric, or even hypocritical characters. For example, LGAS -using A to represent "cAreful", since C is already taken- might fit a paladin who scrupulously follows his code and still takes his commitment very seriously, but after all the good he has done he's started to get a little haughty, and he takes the adoration of the people he helps for granted. This is not an Evil person, but he could use some attitude adjustment. Personally, this isn't a mechanic I'd use in my games. I'd prefer to leave things like general demeanor to just roleplay, and I believe my players are mature and skilled enough to be able to handle that. However, it could be very useful in a group which is looking to expand on its role-playing skills but still needs some general guidelines.
Snargash MoonClaw 11-03-05, 02:49 PM	I'm actually bringing up some other things about alignment here rather than initiating a new thread as I think that this is a good place to look at the whole concept. To start however, I have to agree with some seeming contradictory ideas already presented. That is, True (dedicated ) neutrality is quite rare, as is serious commitment to extremes. I tend to hold alignment more as a generality for both PC and NPCs because an individual's actions tend to vary a lot. Rather than trying to reflect that with more axies, I simply note (or have my players note) how firmly a given character holds to, or strives to embody, a given ideal. I'm sure this isn't a new concept, but this can be graphicaly represented quite simply using a basic Cartesian coordinate system scaled as you wish; "-"10 to "+"10 works fine I think. I use the quotes around the + and - as they would be replaced by the appropriate labels, with Neutral being represented as 0 on either axis; e.g. a character described as "Neutral Good with Chaotic tendancies" might be represented as C4,G8. This allows for the allgnment "drift" while maximaly leveraging existing rule concepts. (I utilize a lot af variants but try to maintain consistancy with what is already in use, both for balance and to make it easier for my players.) The extremes still do exist - including dedicated Neutrality. If you were to plot a characters actions on the sort of coordinate system I've described you would find the actions of a True, Dedicated Neutral character rarely (if ever) fall on 0,0 but rather, over time, would tend to describe a circle around that point. The radius of the circle would depend on the extremes of the circumstances which the character was seeking to place back into balance. One thing that this would clarify is that the character's choices are very neutral, even tho' the actions are not. . . okay - for ease of reading I'll post again regarding some other concepts.
Snargash MoonClaw 11-03-05, 03:12 PM	The biggest difficulty I've had has been trying to clarify two very different aspects of this axis. That is, viewing this in a social context and in a personal context. The difference actually speaks to some very core rule concepts that I find quite contradictory and difficult to resolve cleanly. For example, Monks are required to be Lawful because "A monk's training requires strict discipline. Only those who are lawful at heart are capable of undertaking it." Yet the concepts of personal discipline and social order are not necesarily linked. Monks can actually be much more dedicated to the individual freedom to perfect the self and realize one's personal potential than to the value of a society's structure. I'm tempted to work with a third axis, dividing the Law/Chaos axis into to seperate axies, such as Law/Anarchy (social) and Discipline/Chaos (personal) but would prefer to the means of representing this more clearly within the existing structure. Any ideas out there?
Crystal Monk 11-06-05, 09:57 AM	I think it's an interesting idea. however, you've neglected to consider something that's easy to forget: in a D&D world, Good and Evil and Law and Chaos aren't philosophical/societal concepts, they're concrete physical/metaphysical forces. that's why it's possible to have beings that are always a specific alignment, like Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil. it's not a matter of "nature vs. nurture," it's not a personal choice - being Good or Evil or Lawful or Chaotic is ingrained in who and what they are. I know that you said the standard alignments will be left in place for animals and monsters because it's an integral part of who they are, but I think that the same applies to PCs. a paladin doesn't just decide to do good, a paladin is in touch with the metaphysical force of Good, usually through a deity. also, as BrianD said, your system lacks the dedicated-to-neutrality aspect that's often seen in druids and the like. it's hard to imagine playing a cleric of a nature deity with this system, since nature itself isn't Good, Kind, Selfish, Relaxed, Careful, or Evil. it just is. nature is impartial, which is why druids have to be at least partly Neutral in the RAW - they need to have that kind of understanding. also, and this is a matter of personal opinion, I think that taking out Neutral as an alignment choice doesn't work well because most people are at least partly neutral. in the alignment tests that show up in the sigs of people on this board, I see 'neutral' showing up quite a bit. personally, I consider myself Neutral Good, as far as D&D alignments go - I have tendencies toward Law and Chaos, depending on the situation, but I try to do what I see as right and don't wilfully cause harm to others. I know that your new alignment system tries to better define what a person is between the extremes, but I think it could end up more rigid thanks to the more specific definitions. I hope this helped a little and wasn't too rambling. :D
Otherguy 11-07-05, 03:44 PM	The big issue with neutrality (and law and chaos) is what it really means. A friend and I had a discussion about this on a message board about half a year ago and I came to this basic conclusion about neutrality: preservation. True neutral characters aren't interested in working toward the common good or the fall of a nation. They don't really desire power for power's sake and don't revel in organization or chaos. It's a vague description, so let me deomonstrate. A TN druid is living in her grove, harmonious with nature, and suddenly a village starts to tear down more trees than is strictly needed. The druid goes to the humans, beats them back, makes sure they can't harm her forest in the near future, and returns to her woods. She doesn't empty their food stores or crush their spirits, nor does she look for fellowship and friendship or some sort of alliance with them that she doesn't need. Seen from one perspective, she's good. She's a protector interested in the preservation of her home and friends. She doesn't hurt her enemies more than she has to. From another, she's evil. She ruthlessly attacks the humans without trying to reason with them, hurts their livelihood and walks away. The druid? She doesn't really analyze it, she just gets her status quo, gets her balance, and lives on. She's not worried about how it will affect the people she hurts beyond whether or not they'll harm her nice little balance. True Neutral is selfishness. Looking out for yourself and ensuring your welfare, or that of the thing you love most. That's all.
jagggar 11-07-05, 06:22 PM	The biggest difficulty I've had has been trying to clarify two very different aspects of this axis. That is, viewing this in a social context and in a personal context. The difference actually speaks to some very core rule concepts that I find quite contradictory and difficult to resolve cleanly. For example, Monks are required to be Lawful because "A monk's training requires strict discipline. Only those who are lawful at heart are capable of undertaking it." Yet the concepts of personal discipline and social order are not necesarily linked. Monks can actually be much more dedicated to the individual freedom to perfect the self and realize one's personal potential than to the value of a society's structure. I'm tempted to work with a third axis, dividing the Law/Chaos axis into to seperate axies, such as Law/Anarchy (social) and Discipline/Chaos (personal) but would prefer to the means of representing this more clearly within the existing structure. Any ideas out there? L/C is always the axis that gets me too. When I tried splitting it up, I came up with Dedicated/ADD for personal because I couldn't think of anything better. I'd try to help if you wanted to work towards splitting it up.
FriendlyBiscuit 11-12-05, 10:40 AM	Sorry I haven't replied. :( I forgot where I posted this, and I've been poring through the DM forums on this. The reason I became interested in implementing an alignment system that precluded neutrality was that I got very fed up. I'm tired of characters who claim to be "True Neutral" simply to avoid the difficulties encountered by a character with a Real alignment. Any spell or other effect that affects a specific alignment is avoided simply by claiming to be neutral. These characters are usually the ones who then can be found stealing from their party, stealing from the blind and elderly, and just generally being a pain in the ass to myself and their fellow players. "I'm neutral, so I don't give a ****." If you're neutral, I understand that you're able to look out for yourself without caring about laws. Nevertheless, if your selfishness goes far enough to harm others, then it's evil. I want to force the players to have *some* sort of alignment to worry about, and to create a loose guideline for their character. As far as implementing that goes, I don't think I have to worry about "balance" druids, because my players have so far never played druids or monks. *shrug* go figure. I was going to have it so that the weaker alignment versions are susceptible to the same things, such as Detect Evil and Magic Circle against Law, but only at 1/2 effectiveness. Perhaps I'll work on the 36-combination method. Do other DMs (or players) have other methods for dealing with a player that takes advantage of being supposedly "True Neutral"?
Snargash MoonClaw 11-13-05, 12:24 AM	Metagaming and Munchikining (hey is that a verb?): Any spell or other effect that affects a specific alignment is avoided simply by claiming to be neutral. Okay, so players using rules/mechanics to increase character "effectiveness" is pretty common, and not necessarily bad until abused. If this particular aspect is being exploited to the extent of abuse then perhaps introducing some things that specificaly (or at least more strongly) effect Neutral characters is in order. Within in game world ideas you could emphasize that neutrals catch crap from everyone. Some fanatics hate "fence sitters and wimps who are afraid to commit to any principles" more than the opposing fanatics. . . Two sides of a battle (lets say LG vs LE) may respect their enemies and honor prisoner rights, exchanges, etc. but deny any such consideration to mercenaries, conscripts, etc. (The "battle" could be an economic one, or some other field of conflict besides martial and the concepts still applied) Fanatics of any stripe in a magical world might well choose to develop spells, weapons, etc. that specificaly seek out those who lack an "alignment aura". In short, It's very easy to make this alignment less safe rather than more. . . (Hopefully these ideas will simply offer some seed concepts - all kinds of things can spring from them with a little cfreative brainstorming.) These characters are usually the ones who then can be found stealing from their party, stealing from the blind and elderly, and just generally being a pain in the ass to myself and their fellow players. "I'm neutral, so I don't give a ****." If you're neutral, I understand that you're able to look out for yourself without caring about laws. Nevertheless, if your selfishness goes far enough to harm others, then it's evil. I want to force the players to have *some* sort of alignment to worry about, In this case, I think best to do just that - if they're consistantly acting evil, then (en)force that alignment. The DMG makes some suggestions regarding doing so out of game, but I prefer first to clarify within the Story. I can recall a very similar example of a Neutral Cleric (of The Lady of Mists)/Thief in a game some years back (I was running 2nd Ed. Forgotten Realms at the time) whose behavior when nobody was looking (e.g. finding treasure when other party members were searching the next room,) was consistantly of the "Hooray for me, screw everyone else," school. She began to have very vivid dreams in which the god Mask repeatedly appeared to her, expressing ever increasing interest in her activities and alleged spiritual convictions. Just as some may view Neutrals as wimps who can't decide, there are others who simply see them as recruiting candidates who just haven't decided yet. . .:plotting: Hope these ideas help.
Otherguy 11-13-05, 06:48 PM	Don't forget that alignment has to translate in-game more than just how it affects your character's spells. If your characters are "neutral" but constantly steal, even when they don't need to steal, then tell them that the are becoming chaotic. Neutral characters steal to provide for themselves or to test themselves or things like that. Chaotic character often steal to cause trouble, it's in their nature. If your players want to keep having that un-aligned immunity that TNs work to cultivate tell them that they have to start playing their characters that way. If they don't shape up, next time an NPC is using detect evil/chaos/alignment or some other spell or effect that would hurt the character if their alignment actually was what they play it as, have it work. Player: "How the hell did that hurt me? I'm neutral!" DM: "You used to be neutral, but you've been acting chaotic for the last few sessions." Player: "That isn't fair!" DM: "I'm sorry, I'm neutral, so I don't give a ****. Roll reflex."
starfire311 11-14-05, 09:45 AM	lol... I cast Magic circle vs Relaxed
Otherguy 11-14-05, 11:45 AM	Maybe relaxed isn't the best word for it. Player: "Aldon walks out of the sauna and heads toward his armor, feeling more relaxed than he has since he left on his journey." DM: "As you reach your armor some sort of invisible force holds you back. A voice cackals behind you. 'I have cast magic circle against relaxed! Now you'll never reach your armor!' the evil wizard says." Player: "Shoot, this is really stressing Aldon out! He's feeling all tense and vulnerable." DM: "You are no longer relaxed, you can easily reach your armor." Player: "w00t! Watch out wizard! Aldon's gonna p4wn you like a n00b." I honestly know people who talk that way.
FriendlyBiscuit 11-16-05, 01:37 PM	That reminds me, I don't like Relaxed or Careful, though Selfish and Kind work for me. Any other name ideas I could use? I decided against Chaotic/Loose/Ainal/Lawful, for obvious reasons... At any rate, the idea was actually that the evil person actually casts Magic Circle Against Chaos as usual, but any numeric effect is halved (rounded down) against someone who's only Relaxed/Loose/whatever.