A New Alignment system [Archive] - Wizards Community

A New Alignment system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ragix
01-01-07, 01:31 PM I feel that the current alignment system is too restricting and too black and white. So, here is my new idea. Each character has an alignment meter. The meter measures how good or evil a character is based upon background, actions, and race. Upon character creation, each person's meter starts at 50 which is true neutral. They then make appropriate modifications based, like I said, on background and race. Above 50 is closer to good, and below 50 is closer to evil, similar to the pH scale. Then, each action a character performs that is moral in any way (say charity or theft or heal spells or stuff like that) either adds or subtracts to that number. However, I don't really have every single instance in mind. Just list an action or two, and put a value next to it, like -5 or +4. One example might look like this: petty theft (-1).
If you have any suggestions, feel free to speak up.
Thx
Ryusage
01-01-07, 02:52 PM I have seen suggestions like this and I'm intrigued by them; have you playtested this? If so, I would love to hear what the players think of it.
CryoSilver
01-01-07, 02:55 PM It's a lot of paperwork.

I handle it much more loosely.

Each time the group levels, I sit down with the player and tell them my thoughts "You've been acting more chaotic this level than before. Do you think you should shift alignment?"

If they're alright with it, it changes.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks
01-01-07, 03:38 PM Way too confusin, especially if you factor the law vs. chaos part into it.

My philosephy is to prettymuch ignore alignement, and maby change it if they do something like kill a bunch of babies (which my players actually did do...so now they are all evil)
a_psh
01-01-07, 03:55 PM I feel that the current alignment system is too restricting and too black and white.In that case, according to your own stated goals, you've failed: your proposed solution is much more restrictive and black-and-white. I mean, you've assigned an individual blackness or whiteness to everything you can do... how much more black-and-white can you get?
King Bulba
01-01-07, 04:41 PM Way too confusin, especially if you factor the law vs. chaos part into it.

Seriously, wait till the PC starts mind controlling people. Mind control is VERY lawful but some call it very evil. What do you do then?

Also what would you do when you need to be lawful for monk and your true neutral?

your proposed solution is much more restrictive and black-and-white.
I have to agree. To create grey you need to loosen the definition of good evil law and chaos or change the system completely. Removing objective alignment is a great way to create grey.

(Not that the gods with their opinions would follow the objective standard, they would call it herasy and ignore it.)
There you go, grey alignment, each god has it's different version of alignment. Takes some extra work to create each gods view but once that's done, there is no other extra work.
Sphyre
01-02-07, 02:06 AM It's a lot of paperwork.

I handle it much more loosely.

Each time the group levels, I sit down with the player and tell them my thoughts "You've been acting more chaotic this level than before. Do you think you should shift alignment?"

If they're alright with it, it changes.

I kind of go with it this way too. Once in the 6th month campagin i've been running I've said to both the Chaotic Neutral wizard and Chaotic Neutral Ninja (no, neither are chaotic stupid, which I'm very thankful for) "Recently you've really been into this saving the world thing. You've allied yourself with the will of good dragons for no reward, have done good deeds and all of it's pretty selfless. You're definately favoring some good here. You can stay the alignment you are, but if you want to switch over to good, because that's pretty much how you've been acting, you may at any time. Just tell me." If they want to act more neutral, they may, if they want to adopt a new set of morals they can too.

I think what you did, asking the player if they think they should shift alignment, is a good idea for experienced players. (Although my players are pretty new, so the alignment system is a little too fuzzy to get a grasp on yet, so I'm kind of helping them with the process)
Mock26
01-02-07, 04:25 AM I kind of go with it this way too. Once in the 6th month campagin i've been running I've said to both the Chaotic Neutral wizard and Chaotic Neutral Ninja (no, neither are chaotic stupid, which I'm very thankful for) "Recently you've really been into this saving the world thing. You've allied yourself with the will of good dragons for no reward, have done good deeds and all of it's pretty selfless. You're definately favoring some good here. You can stay the alignment you are, but if you want to switch over to good, because that's pretty much how you've been acting, you may at any time. Just tell me." If they want to act more neutral, they may, if they want to adopt a new set of morals they can too.

Who is to say that self preservation has to be a good deed? Ever stop to think that the reason that they are interested in saving the world is because by saving the world they are also saving their own scrawny little butts? That sounds very selfish to me, and more inline with CN than LN or CG. They also may have simply allied themselves with some good people because those good people were the best choice in helping the characters see to it that the world is saved, and that their own butts are saved. Even an evil guy might want to save the world if by doing so he was also ensuring his own survival.
Sphyre
01-02-07, 04:50 AM Who is to say that self preservation has to be a good deed? Ever stop to think that the reason that they are interested in saving the world is because by saving the world they are also saving their own scrawny little butts? That sounds very selfish to me, and more inline with CN than LN or CG. They also may have simply allied themselves with some good people because those good people were the best choice in helping the characters see to it that the world is saved, and that their own butts are saved. Even an evil guy might want to save the world if by doing so he was also ensuring his own survival.

While that may be true there are several reasons that specifically isn't the case, and you wouldn't have known that because I didn't give you enough information :(

This is set in a homebrew setting that I call "Dicosmos." From that you can probably tell that there are two different worlds. One is from one, the other is from the other, and they have access to both. Both have no family left to speak of (Although one lives to do his father proud).
Travel between the two is extremely limited and since they have access to going to both, if they were going te self-preservation route, they wouldn't be risking their lives when they could simply stay on the one that has much more powerful people than themselves.
Both characters have never been roleplayed as anything on the good/evil alignment axis that was evil, only neutral and more often good. For that reason I said they could be either one, whichever they thought was dominant.
Both players are pretty new, and while the actions could be out of neutral neccesity, both are being selfless and thinking about the people that they don't even know on the world that's being conquered. They are acting good. I don't think they have the roleplaying capability yet, to do good deeds with a neutral mentality yet. Yet this is also why I left it for them, because they are learning, and they may be able to do it sometime soon. Because I keep my communication with my players open, I have a very good idea of their motives because they explain them to me.
I'm sure there's more reasons but I'm sure you get the point.

Although, I might take slight offense to the fact that you said "ever stop to think that..." which implies that I don't, although that might have been because you didn't have pertinent knowledge to the situation.
kelvinaw273
01-02-07, 09:44 AM I am considering a system of Opposed Traits for my next campaign, one set each for the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axes. If you are stronger in one set of traits than in another, you register as the appropriate alignment. Whatever your score in a trait, in the opposite trait you have a score of 20-{opposite score}.

For example, the Good/Evil traits might run:
Couragous/Cowardly
Altruistic/Selfish
Compassionate/Callous
Forgiving/Vengeful

While the Law/Chaos traits may run:
Disciplined/Eratic
Logical/Intuitive
Conservative/Rebelious
Honourable/Unscrupulous

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ragix 01-01-07, 01:31 PM	I feel that the current alignment system is too restricting and too black and white. So, here is my new idea. Each character has an alignment meter. The meter measures how good or evil a character is based upon background, actions, and race. Upon character creation, each person's meter starts at 50 which is true neutral. They then make appropriate modifications based, like I said, on background and race. Above 50 is closer to good, and below 50 is closer to evil, similar to the pH scale. Then, each action a character performs that is moral in any way (say charity or theft or heal spells or stuff like that) either adds or subtracts to that number. However, I don't really have every single instance in mind. Just list an action or two, and put a value next to it, like -5 or +4. One example might look like this: petty theft (-1). If you have any suggestions, feel free to speak up. Thx
Ryusage 01-01-07, 02:52 PM	I have seen suggestions like this and I'm intrigued by them; have you playtested this? If so, I would love to hear what the players think of it.
CryoSilver 01-01-07, 02:55 PM	It's a lot of paperwork. I handle it much more loosely. Each time the group levels, I sit down with the player and tell them my thoughts "You've been acting more chaotic this level than before. Do you think you should shift alignment?" If they're alright with it, it changes.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 01-01-07, 03:38 PM	Way too confusin, especially if you factor the law vs. chaos part into it. My philosephy is to prettymuch ignore alignement, and maby change it if they do something like kill a bunch of babies (which my players actually did do...so now they are all evil)
a_psh 01-01-07, 03:55 PM	I feel that the current alignment system is too restricting and too black and white.In that case, according to your own stated goals, you've failed: your proposed solution is much more restrictive and black-and-white. I mean, you've assigned an individual blackness or whiteness to everything you can do... how much more black-and-white can you get?
King Bulba 01-01-07, 04:41 PM	Way too confusin, especially if you factor the law vs. chaos part into it. Seriously, wait till the PC starts mind controlling people. Mind control is VERY lawful but some call it very evil. What do you do then? Also what would you do when you need to be lawful for monk and your true neutral? your proposed solution is much more restrictive and black-and-white. I have to agree. To create grey you need to loosen the definition of good evil law and chaos or change the system completely. Removing objective alignment is a great way to create grey. (Not that the gods with their opinions would follow the objective standard, they would call it herasy and ignore it.) There you go, grey alignment, each god has it's different version of alignment. Takes some extra work to create each gods view but once that's done, there is no other extra work.
Sphyre 01-02-07, 02:06 AM	It's a lot of paperwork. I handle it much more loosely. Each time the group levels, I sit down with the player and tell them my thoughts "You've been acting more chaotic this level than before. Do you think you should shift alignment?" If they're alright with it, it changes. I kind of go with it this way too. Once in the 6th month campagin i've been running I've said to both the Chaotic Neutral wizard and Chaotic Neutral Ninja (no, neither are chaotic stupid, which I'm very thankful for) "Recently you've really been into this saving the world thing. You've allied yourself with the will of good dragons for no reward, have done good deeds and all of it's pretty selfless. You're definately favoring some good here. You can stay the alignment you are, but if you want to switch over to good, because that's pretty much how you've been acting, you may at any time. Just tell me." If they want to act more neutral, they may, if they want to adopt a new set of morals they can too. I think what you did, asking the player if they think they should shift alignment, is a good idea for experienced players. (Although my players are pretty new, so the alignment system is a little too fuzzy to get a grasp on yet, so I'm kind of helping them with the process)
Mock26 01-02-07, 04:25 AM	I kind of go with it this way too. Once in the 6th month campagin i've been running I've said to both the Chaotic Neutral wizard and Chaotic Neutral Ninja (no, neither are chaotic stupid, which I'm very thankful for) "Recently you've really been into this saving the world thing. You've allied yourself with the will of good dragons for no reward, have done good deeds and all of it's pretty selfless. You're definately favoring some good here. You can stay the alignment you are, but if you want to switch over to good, because that's pretty much how you've been acting, you may at any time. Just tell me." If they want to act more neutral, they may, if they want to adopt a new set of morals they can too. Who is to say that self preservation has to be a good deed? Ever stop to think that the reason that they are interested in saving the world is because by saving the world they are also saving their own scrawny little butts? That sounds very selfish to me, and more inline with CN than LN or CG. They also may have simply allied themselves with some good people because those good people were the best choice in helping the characters see to it that the world is saved, and that their own butts are saved. Even an evil guy might want to save the world if by doing so he was also ensuring his own survival.
Sphyre 01-02-07, 04:50 AM	Who is to say that self preservation has to be a good deed? Ever stop to think that the reason that they are interested in saving the world is because by saving the world they are also saving their own scrawny little butts? That sounds very selfish to me, and more inline with CN than LN or CG. They also may have simply allied themselves with some good people because those good people were the best choice in helping the characters see to it that the world is saved, and that their own butts are saved. Even an evil guy might want to save the world if by doing so he was also ensuring his own survival. While that may be true there are several reasons that specifically isn't the case, and you wouldn't have known that because I didn't give you enough information :( This is set in a homebrew setting that I call "Dicosmos." From that you can probably tell that there are two different worlds. One is from one, the other is from the other, and they have access to both. Both have no family left to speak of (Although one lives to do his father proud). Travel between the two is extremely limited and since they have access to going to both, if they were going te self-preservation route, they wouldn't be risking their lives when they could simply stay on the one that has much more powerful people than themselves. Both characters have never been roleplayed as anything on the good/evil alignment axis that was evil, only neutral and more often good. For that reason I said they could be either one, whichever they thought was dominant. Both players are pretty new, and while the actions could be out of neutral neccesity, both are being selfless and thinking about the people that they don't even know on the world that's being conquered. They are acting good. I don't think they have the roleplaying capability yet, to do good deeds with a neutral mentality yet. Yet this is also why I left it for them, because they are learning, and they may be able to do it sometime soon. Because I keep my communication with my players open, I have a very good idea of their motives because they explain them to me. I'm sure there's more reasons but I'm sure you get the point. Although, I might take slight offense to the fact that you said "ever stop to think that..." which implies that I don't, although that might have been because you didn't have pertinent knowledge to the situation.
kelvinaw273 01-02-07, 09:44 AM	I am considering a system of Opposed Traits for my next campaign, one set each for the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axes. If you are stronger in one set of traits than in another, you register as the appropriate alignment. Whatever your score in a trait, in the opposite trait you have a score of 20-{opposite score}. For example, the Good/Evil traits might run: Couragous/Cowardly Altruistic/Selfish Compassionate/Callous Forgiving/Vengeful While the Law/Chaos traits may run: Disciplined/Eratic Logical/Intuitive Conservative/Rebelious Honourable/Unscrupulous