Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kelvinaw273 07-02-06, 12:32 PM	I had this idea on another Forum, and thought I'd post it here to see what people thought. My main inspiration was all those ****ing paladin threads about what or was not acceptable to a paladin. I also drew inspiration from the game that probably best imitates the concept of the paladin - the old Chaosium rules for the Pendragon RPG. D & D Traits I thought about steting up sets of traits for each axes of alignment. For example: Good/Evil traits: Merciful/Ruthless Altruistic/Selfish Forgiving/Vengeful Courageous/Cowardly Humble/Proud Compassionate/Sadistic Lawful/Chaotic traits: Calm/Passionate Disciplined/Erratic Plotting/Whimsical Obedient/Rebellious Chaste/Lustful Inflexible/Easygoing Select five sets of traits from each list, each trait has a rating 1-20, and its opposite trait becomes 20 minus this score. Either ignore the other trait or clas sit as ‘Neutral’ to that character. To qualify as an alignment axes a character needs at least four traits at 15 or higher for that alignment. Exceptions would be that a Paladin might need all Good traits at 15 or more, depending upon their code, creed and religion. Clerics might face similarly stringent rules. Characters can start with any scrore they desire, but none higher than 16 or lower than 4. Any time the character performs an action particularly extreme in one trait axis, they gain a 'check'. At the end of an adventure each check is rolled on a d20: scoring over the existing score means that score increases by one. Alternatively, the DM can award points, or the party can vote on them. It takes exceptional acts to raise scores above 16, however. Any time a character levels up they may add or subtract one point on any one trait. This would allow characters to be personalised and yet still follow alignment restrictions, and it would end all the interminable complaining about what paladins are and are not able to do ... For example, a Paladin might be required to have the following traits at 15+: Merciful, Altruistic, Forgiving, Courageous, Humble, Chaste, Obedient and Disciplined. So this paladin build might look like this: Good/Evil traits: Merciful 16/Ruthless 04 Altruistic 16/Selfish 04 Forgiving 16/Vengeful 04 Courageous 16/Cowardly 04 Humble 16/Proud 04 Neutral: Compassionate 15/Sadistic 05 Lawful/Chaotic traits: Calm 05/Passionate 15 Disciplined 16/Erratic 04 Obedient 16/Rebellious 04 Chaste 16/Lustful 04 Inflexible 10/Easygoing 10 Neutral: Plotting 10/Whimsical 10 Our player decides that while he is lawful, his character is not particularly infelxible, but is very passionate about his calling. Thoughts, anyone?
CaviosDaryll 07-02-06, 12:40 PM	Eh... it's unnecessarily complex (Well, not complex, instead it just take pointless effort to keep track of EVERYTHING). I think the current allignment system is fine. If there are that many problems about what a Paladin can and cannot do that you need this chart then just give the DM the final say (which he should have anyways). If you dislike the decision he makes then take the prestige class Blackguard and have fun.
Hozart 07-02-06, 01:25 PM	It took me two reads to figure this out. So tell me if I'm on the right track. Making a Lawful Evil Knight, my alignment would look like: Good/Evil traits: Merciful 05/Ruthless 15 Altruistic 05/Selfish 15 Forgiving 04/Vengeful 16 Courageous 16/Cowardly 04 Humble 04/Proud 16 Lawful/Chaotic traits: Calm 10/Passionate 10 Disciplined 16/Erratic 04 Obedient 16/Rebellious 04 Chaste 16/Lustful 04 Inflexible 16/Easygoing 04 If this knignt levels up, I can add/subtract a point to any trait, so I could, to represent increase in power, add to to my pride like this: Humble 03/Proud 17 If only this would give a bonus or penalty. Such as the character traits in Unearthed Arcana. For what reason is there for there to only be a change at leveling up? I think a person's alignment could change quickly sometimes. Or, using this system, his or her ability to be easygoing vs. being inflexible. Hopefully I understand this system, but unfortunately it is quite complex, and my group is full of those who prefer a more black and white alignments and are not interested in deep roleplaying. I think for a Non hack-and-slash game however, this would be a nice system, as it also gives personality to the character. I like it for that reason.
Silverlight 07-02-06, 01:37 PM	I think that if your paladin needs this kind of system to track his behavior, he isn't a paladin any more. If someone wants to play a lawful good character (or lawful, or chaotic, or whatever) then they should be doing that and not constantly giving the rest of the group reasons to question their alignment.
kelvinaw273 07-02-06, 01:42 PM	The DM would modify scores based on behaviour, so if your lawful evil character is overly merciful, his score could change to Merciful 06 / Ruthless 14. Too many deeds and he may lose Evil status. Leveling allows characters to reafirm their values, and maybe stay on track. In the original Pendragon game having enough stats at the correct levels could give bonuses for chivalry, religion etc. Here I would say the ultimate advantage is that forcing a character to go against they values (use a d20 to get under the score in order to succeed) could give a bonus to saves or skills. For Example, a Sune (FR goddess of love) may value the traits Compassionate, Altruistic, Merciful, Forgiving, Passionate and Lustful. Being a follower of Sune and having all these traits at 16+ should could grant a +4 bonus to certain social interaction situations. If a god of war emphasises Pride, Courage, Discipline, Obedience, Ruthless and Passionate, he may grant those of his followers that fulfill all of these criteria a combat feat. For those that use Exalted, getting scores of 20 in the Good traits may open the door to exalted feats. In a normal campaign they may grant direct bonuses - Courgae 20 may grant a +2 bonus to saves vs fear. Rebelious 20 may give a +2 bonus vs any mind control. This makes scores worth spending time and energy maintaining.
Quoth_theRaven 07-04-06, 04:34 PM	I'd have to agree that a system like this is going overboard into the realm of micromanagement, though I do understand the need for clarifying actions of characters within the framework of alignment. However, the relationships of traits presented, could be quite useful in designing a code of conduct for a character's temple or other organization. Then base any consequences from actions taken on violations of the CoC rather than alignment.
Da Black Cat 07-04-06, 04:53 PM	How about taking one virtue/vice pair that best sums up the character and then have a scale from 1-10, with 1 representing acting excessively from the vice and 10 representing acting in accordance with the virtue? Characters with a score of 1-3 would be Evil, characters with a score of 4-7 would be Neutral and characters with a score of 8-10 would be Good. Law/Chaos is then reflected in the vice/virtue pair itself - Righteous/Intolerant or Committed/Divisive for Lawful, for example, and Free-Spirited/Self-Indulgent or Innovative/Eccentric for Chaotic. Actions that don't relate to a character's virtue/vice pair wouldn't affect his or her alignment (as much) but then, if set-up right, characters would naturally have more 'issues' with their virtue/vice pair, because it reflects his or her personality.
henebry 07-04-06, 05:09 PM	I had this idea on another Forum, and thought I'd post it here to see what people thought. My main inspiration was all those ****ing paladin threads about what or was not acceptable to a paladin. I also drew inspiration from the game that probably best imitates the concept of the paladin - the old Chaosium rules for the Pendragon RPG. Cool, but let's simplify the number of traits, then add complexity afterwards (for each of the "good/evil" traits is notably similar to one of the "law/chaos" traits): Good/Evil Merciful/Ruthless (subsumes Forgiving/Vengeful as essentially identical) Altruistic/Selfish (subsumes Humble/Proud as essentially identical; Courageous/Cowardly is either irrelevant or identical, depending on what you mean by these terms) Law/Chaos Disciplined/Passionate (subsumes Calm, Lust, Inflexible, etc. as identical) Obedient/Rebellious Now that we've radically simplified, we can add texture by noting that Mercy (motivated by compassion and resulting in a violation of the letter of the law) is essentially chaotic in nature, as well as being "good". So, too, Ruthlessness is essentially lawful as well as evil. At the same time Altruism is essentially lawful as well as good and selfishness essentially chaotic as well as evil. In this way, an act that resulted in a "Merciful" trait check would require either a "passionate" trait check or a "rebellious" trait check, depending on the circumstances of the act. A similar complexity marks the traits of law and chaos: certain acts of passion would require a "selfishness" trait check while others would require a "merciful" one. Certain acts of obedience would result in a "ruthlessness" check while others would result in an "altruistic" one. What I like about this is that it suggests the real complexity of moral dilemmas: an act of mercy may well involve rebellion, not simply compassion.
Cifer 07-04-06, 06:22 PM	So, too, Ruthlessness is essentially lawful as well as evil. Not neccessarily. Suppose the laws say that a prisoner is not to be harmed, but you want to get your revenge (vengeful as a subaspect of Ruthless) and kill him. I still propose that any alignment system is not needed, especially those with numerical systems. A set of virtues, however, is quite practical in determining a code of conduct for those classes that need to preserve it.
clarkvalentine 07-04-06, 06:30 PM	Have you played Pendragon? That system does something very much like this, and it works very well. However, that system models Arthurian literature where the emotional motives of each character are as important as their actual deeds.
Cthulhu-LQ 07-05-06, 10:39 AM	I like the virtues/vices system of Pendragon, and it can certainly be used in D&D. But then, get rid completely of the original alignment system, lawful/chaotic/good/evil dont exist anymore, so you don't have to class the sets of virtues/vices in these categories. The only need to categorize some virtues/vices as good or evil is for spells like detect evil, smite evil, ... This system may be good in a game where the PCs are part of organisations with strict codes of conduct, where you want to enforce moral dilemmas. Otherwise it's just too complex for no real gain.
Dowjin 07-05-06, 01:51 PM	henebry - I actually have to disagree with you there on that one. Too much overlapping, for things that can be construed differently. I.E. Forgiving and merciful. I can let someone live out of pity or the law, but I don't necessarily forgive them. Your revision is wonderful in keping things simple, but I think the entire point of kelvinaw273's system for weighing all the moral/ethics works just fine. Yes its complex, and yes its a wee complicated. But I'm going to use it as-is, and I rather like it. My reason for doing so being; if you want to keep it simple, don't use this system at all. If you don't mind a little extra complexity, use the full system all the way. I don't think it takes up nearly as much time as one would say, choose spells. It'll just take a little getting used to in order to jot things down comfortably from memory. kelvinaw273 - Great work! Coincidentally, my 100 point grace period between alignments is very accurately represented by your 5x20 (keeping the extra two as neutral) trait sets. I absolutely love it. Though, I wouldn't grant bonuses for the traits, any more than I would grant bonuses for someone being especially good. Exhalted would be the path to follow for that. If a church, though, just happens to revere their paladin and grant him blessed equipment, thats all on the church and how big of an impression the Paladin makes. It has nothing to do with "At twenty points of Altruistic, you are entitled a <skill or some other BS> check to-", and I don't think it ever should. If a god(ess) wants to bless or bestow divine favor, its entirely up to the individual to gain her attention, and not just simply "At twenty points of Passionate, you are entitled a charisma check to-". I think this system should be used in conjunction with RP, not to get rid of it.
taradusis 07-05-06, 06:11 PM	I still like the allegiance system of d20 modern where you're either in a relationship with what you have allegiance to or not.This allows for a murderous person to still remain in good standing (loose example) :)
Kresalak 07-05-06, 06:50 PM	I like the color wheel from Magic: the Gathering, and I will write something on putting that into the D&D system and cosmology. I should have it by the end of August, since it's not high on my list of projects, which goes: Finish Planeswalkers, Phyrexia, Color of Alignment, new magic system.
Quoth_theRaven 07-05-06, 09:44 PM	I had thought of using the system once back in the 2E days when I first bought a copy of Pendragon (shame I only have the old core rulebook). My biggest issue was with the recordkeeping involved. A DM has enough already to do, and I'm not sure I would want the players to know exactly how the character looks in the eyes of others (there are always doubts), so letting them keep track is a bit iffy. It's a perfectly workable system if you don't mind the bookkeeping. I would apply fixed values to an organization/church/etc. If one of the character's numbers should fall below that of the organization, he gets a warning of some kind. If more than half fall below, then he loses his status. I'm not sure about not getting any kind of bonus for exemplary scores. A character of such high repute should gain something for his renown, maybe something as simple as a bonus/penalty to his Diplomacy check when influencing NPCs (pg. 72 PHB). I wouldn't be inclined to go much beyond that, though.