Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. NewFox 06-25-05, 04:46 PM	The Virtue system Instead of an alignment, each character can be described as exemplifying a number of virtues. A virtue is like a character or personality trait, except that it directly affects that character’s stance toward her fellow beings. I am going to crib from Aristotle and suggest four virtues: Courage Generosity (or compassion) Temperance Insight (wisdom sounds better, but confuses with the ability score) Each virtue is represented by a score from 1 to 10 (though 3 – 18 can work just as well). While virtues reflect standing character traits, they become “real” (read: effective) when they are actually exemplified—that is, when a character does some action that somehow embodies that virtue. Characters start at first level with a “1” in each virtue: the average Joe has some modicum of virtue, but has not yet had a chance to “exemplify” that virtue. During play, virtue scores may go up or down. A character’s virtue score is the total of all their virtues. Example: Lara the Paladin Courage: 5 Generosity: 2 Temperance: 3 Insight: 3 Total virtue: 13 Each virtue represents a “balance” or “golden mean” for how to act. For example, courage lies on a spectrum between being cowardly (not enough courage) to being fool-hardy (too much courage). Likewise, generosity (or compassion) is exemplified when the character navigates between utter selfishness (lack of generosity) and being a doormat or a spendthrift (too much generosity). When a character shows through their actions a good balance, they have exemplified a virtue. Virtues can be great for reflecting character reputation as well: a character with a high insight might have the moniker “the wise” appended to their name when stories are told, for example. Some stock examples of actions that might fall under virtues are: Courage: standing up to a foe of equal or greater strength, speaking up (to authority) when the outcome is unknown, putting oneself at risk to save others Generosity: giving to the poor, providing healing to others, performing quests for those that may not be able to pay Temperance: taking only one’s fair share of gold and/or treasure, refraining from killing weak and defenseless opponents, showing restraint instead of anger Insight: being diplomatic in conversation or speech, taking time to assess a situation and finding a clue or secret, giving sage advice. Note that virtue scores only change with action. Although they reflect inner character traits, it is acts that are virtuous or not. Thus, intent is not as important as the kind of act being performed. A paladin, for example, may feel like she is displaying courage when going toe-to-toe with an ogre, only to find that she is outmatched and needs to run away. Although the paladin thought she was displaying courage, she actually swung from one extreme to the other: foolhardiness to cowardice. Though her virtue score may not suffer, it should not increase. How scores change There are two ways to hand out virtue points (that seem fair at least). The first way is to treat virtue as a kind of “roleplay” XP. Certain encounters have a set amount of virtue if handled in a certain way, and the characters simply gain that amount of virtue if they act accordingly. Example: the paladin from above runs into a beggar on the streets and gives some small amount of her treasure. The DM judged ahead of time that giving a small amount would earn a character 1 point of generosity, while a large amount or nothing at all would earn no points. The second way is more fun, but takes longer. Before a session, the DM sets a maximum number of virtue points to be earned that session—one to two points is a good average, but more is possible (if the DM is unsure, rolling randomly is not a bad idea—1d4 or 1d6). The DM writes this number down and does not show the players. At the end of a session, the players get to decide semi-democratically who earned virtue over the session. Each player can nominate one other player who should get a virtue point in a given virtue (the same player can be nominated multiple times for different virtues, by different players). Players cannot nominate their own character(s). So, for example, consider a party of four with a paladin, ranger, rogue, and wizard. The paladin player nominates the ranger who courage. Both the ranger and the rogue nominate the paladin for virtues: the ranger nominates her for insight, and the rogue nominates her for courage. The wizard nominates no one. Voting goes in order of nomination, and continues until either all the “points” have been rewarded, or there are no nominees left. So, in our example, the players vote first on whether the ranger should get a point of courage (yes or no). If the majority of players think the ranger earned it, then the ranger gets the point. In case of a tie, the DM votes. In this example, the ranger does get the point. Now the paladin is up for insight. The party again has a “yes” vote. The DM determined ahead of time that there would be two points, maximum, rewarded. Thus, both points have been given out and voting stops: there is no vote on whether the paladin gets a point of courage. The idea behind the voting system is that all players have a say in the actions that they think represent a particular virtue. Though it is relatively easy to accumulate virtue in this way, the preset limit avoids sky-rocketing virtue scores. The preset limit also encourages players to vote only for those characters/virtues that they think truly deserve a boost. Vice A negative virtue score indicates a “vice” or debt of virtue. The DM should always be the one to subtract virtue—the players should not vote. Unless, of course, you run an evil campaign: players may have their characters actively try for negative scores by exemplifying vices. Typically, a one-point penalty is sufficient, but gross acts of vice may cost a character two, or even three, virtue points. Vices tend to be more motley than virtues, since there are many ways for a virtue to “go wrong”. Usually, lack of a virtue is a negative thing; in an evil campaign, however, lack of virtue might indicate other desirable qualities. Like virtues, vices might affect reputation (“Randy the cruel”). Here are some examples of vices; examples suitable for an evil campaign are in italics: Courage: cowardice, bloodlust, foolhardiness, deceit Generosity: selfishness, “hoarding”, trading favors, cruelty Temperance: drunkenness, stubbornness, hot-headedness, extreme, fanatic Insight: “machiavellian” intelligence, over-thinking or scheming, impulsiveness Game mechanics Paladinhood—spells and items—benefits of virtue Virtues are a good way of keeping track of your paladin’s behavior. Every time a paladin loses a point in a virtue, they should have to atone for the act that cost them that point. The difficulty of the atonement should be directly related to the amount of virtue lost. If a paladin’s virtue drops below their level, they lose their paladin-hood until the virtue is regained. This might require atonement, or side quests to bolster virtue. Remember, characters are supposed to exemplify virtue in noticeable ways: a paladin that loses his or her paladin-hood shouldn’t be able to regain it just by donating to the poor. If a paladin’s virtue becomes negative, they cannot advance as a paladin ever again (I will leave the possibilities of becoming a blackguard as an exercise for the DMs). Some spells and magic items affect creatures that are good, neutral, evil, or chaotic. Once way to handle this is by the numbers: a creature is considered “good” if they have 8 or more virtue points, evil if they have less than 0 virtue points, and neutral otherwise. Another way to handle this is to change the “evil” and “good” descriptors to virtue descriptors: instead of protection from good/evil/law/chaos, there would be protection from each virtue and each vice, for example. There is also potential for special magic items: for example, a magical sword that can only be wielded by characters with a virtue score of 10 or more. Some DM’s might rule that virtues and vices have benefits associated with them. The benefit should be small, but still give the player something to work towards. For example, a score of 4 in a particular virtue might grant a saving throw bonus or skill bonus, which increases again at 8. This bonus should be considered either a divine bonus or an insight bonus, at the DM’s discretion. Some suggestions for such bonuses: Courage of 4: +2 save vs. fear effects Generosity of 4: caster level is considered +1 for healing spells Temperance of 4: two additional skill points Insight of 4: +1 on will saves versus spells Note that you do not have to limit yourself to the four virtues listed here. There can be other virtues, possibly more than four. Just keep in mind that the more virtues a character can have, the more freely points should be given out. Comments, suggestions, clarifications, etc, appreciated!
totoro 06-26-05, 12:10 AM	Although I spend a great deal of time discussing alignment on the boards, I don't like to spend any time with it in game. While the described house rule seems elegant and descriptive, it would not be my preference. I think the less time alignment takes (book-keeping, analysis, etc.), the better. To avoid sparking another alignment debate that spins off into chaos, I will not explain what I do. Suffice to say that it is simple.
Mr. NewFox 06-26-05, 08:41 PM	Thank you for the compliment, and for taking the time to read the post :) Of course, I'm not demanding that anyone use this system. Its just an alternative. Any DM is free to skip it-- or scrap alignment altogether. I just wanted to see how alignment could actually be improved to be a viable part of character development and game mechancis. If one doesn't want to use alignment to begin with, I guess the point is moot :cool: I would be curious, though, to hear about other systems or tweaks other DMs have done...
DefStatic 06-26-05, 11:03 PM	I like to look at alugnment as how someone acts, not that they are neccisarily bad or good. I leave that to a villans and heros idea. There are villian, and there are heros, and those inbetween. Alignment however, I just look at as how someone acts. A lawfull evil char for instance doesn;t have to be a bad guy in the game, just is very selfish, ignores laws, stuff like that. Or a Chaotic good char respects the laws, but has no problem breaking them if need be, and is not selfish, but won't neccisarily take a bullet. I don't know, just how I look at stuff. I agree that aguments over alignment in game are a hassel. I have tried to clear it up to the best of my abilities beore my game. Arguments over spells and pety rules are easy, arguments over alignment are usually more involved. I don't think I personally would use your system to DM, but I think it would be interesting to play as a char.
HappyDragon 06-28-05, 12:44 PM	It is an interesting set up, but unless I missed reading it along the way somewhere, how exactly are the original scores decided upon at the beginning of the game?
Mr. NewFox 06-28-05, 08:17 PM	It is an interesting set up, but unless I missed reading it along the way somewhere, how exactly are the original scores decided upon at the beginning of the game? If you're asking how characters get their original scores, then: Characters start at first level with a “1” in each virtue: the average Joe has some modicum of virtue, but has not yet had a chance to “exemplify” that virtue If you're asking what point get awarded for which actions in which situations, well... DM determines it, just like treasure (or anything else). Edit: OK, what I forgot to add in the OP is how scores can be determined for characters generated beyong level one. I think this can be addressed with something like a "virtue by level" table, much like the "wealth by level" table in the DMG. I don't have such a table handy, but it should be pretty easy to make one.