Alignment Axis [Archive] - Wizards Community

Alignment Axis [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
subpneuma
11-19-04, 11:53 PM Is there such a thing?

According to my DM, there is an "alignment axis" rule. For example, if the core alignment of the party is Neutral Evil, the other party members can choose only from one of these alignments:
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil
True Neutral

I can't seem to find the rule. If there is indeed such a thing, can someone please direct me to the source, i.e. which book and which page. If not, can someone please enlighten me on the subject. Thank you.
Satans Spawn
11-20-04, 12:50 AM So far as I know, there is no rule for that. I think your DM is either pulling your chain, or would like to keep the party within the same general alignment.
Arcen
11-20-04, 02:16 AM Probably a house rule of his. Doesn't sound like a bad idea actually. It would keep from have parties tear themselves apart due to alignment.
Dougan Axehammer
11-20-04, 02:35 AM Is there such a thing?

According to my DM, there is an "alignment axis" rule. For example, if the core alignment of the party is Neutral Evil, the other party members can choose only from one of these alignments:
Lawful Evil
Neutral Evil
Chaotic Evil
True Neutral

I can't seem to find the rule. If there is indeed such a thing, can someone please direct me to the source, i.e. which book and which page. If not, can someone please enlighten me on the subject. Thank you.

Actually, there is a rule, though it is not core. It was created for "Pool of Radience: Return to Myth Drannor", the new computer game for D&D (and the first to use the 3rd Edition rule set.) It allowed the party to have relatively similar points of view to prevent party derision or conflict (for example LG Paladin and CE cleric.) Maybe your DM just wants to do away with similar problems.
crazysamaritan
11-20-04, 03:30 AM Only problem is...
It's metagaming (IMO) to agree if you have the same alignment. CG and CG can disagree with each other just fine, even become enemies if one believes what the other is doing is wrong. Completely wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that. The only problem you might get is with paladin and evil characters.

I still say it's a fine house-rule, though.
Thorak
11-20-04, 12:28 PM Actually, there is a rule, though it is not core. It was created for "Pool of Radience: Return to Myth Drannor", the new computer game for D&D (and the first to use the 3rd Edition rule set.) It allowed the party to have relatively similar points of view to prevent party derision or conflict (for example LG Paladin and CE cleric.) Maybe your DM just wants to do away with similar problems.
Technically, it was created for the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG. Which, I'll add, also uses the 3rd edition ruleset, as did Neverwinter Nights. PoR: RtMD isn't the first by any means, but there's some hope they'll actually get a decent storyline in there and fix the massive engine bugs ToEE had (since it's using that engine; it's a great engine, just needs to be fully debugged like it wasn't for ToEE).

Oh, and it's a ridiculous rule. For some reason, it thinks that a LG and a CG character can get along fine if the party alignment is NG, but not if the party alignment is anything else. I agree there should be some limits to character alignments, unless you discuss with your DM and they both know what you want to do and why it won't screw with the party. For instance, it's perfectly possible to play an Evil wizard in a Good party. What they're doing for the right reasons, he's doing because he gets good money/survives longer than alone/knows he can trust them/enjoys their company. Sure, if he's caught by the enemy, he'll crack and spill his guts to avoid getting tortured in all likelihood, but being Evil doesn't mean you have to be anti-party. For an entirely selfish person, a party represents people who protect you for free, all you have to do is be nice and help them in return. It's cheaper than mercenaries, and more trustworthy. They would only consider screwing a party member if they thought the reward would offset the loss of the party. In the above example, living longer without the party is obviously better than dying nobly, so he cracks. But if he's offered a bunch of money to betray them? Forget it. He'll get more money by helping them over the long run.
subpneuma
11-20-04, 12:49 PM My future party members:
Lawful Evil Undead Blackguard
Neutral Evil Human Sorcerer
Neutral Evil Elven Cleric
True Neutral Human Shugenja
Chaotic Evil Mindflayer Pyrokineticist
I am planning to play a True Neutral Shugenja/Sorcerer/Mystic Thurge. Hence some of the players have commented that though my character's alignment is in accordance with the alignment axis rule, it is not adivisable.

Their reasoning:
Can you please try to imagine a scene where a True Neutral character will come into conflict with an evil party, for example:
we deciding to burn down the whole forest just to smoke the enemy out
we deciding to slaughter a whole bunch of innocent children or animals just for the fun of it.
Won't these actions go against your believe of preserving the balance?My reply:
Please read page 104 of the PHB and reconsider your viewpoint. A true neutral character may have compunctions against those actions but my character is committed to the party by personal relationships, most likely to the Blackguard. That is how I may want my background story to tie in.
PHB Good vs. Evil p. 104: my character may sacrifice himself to protect the party members, but not strangers
PHB Law vs. Chaos p. 104: he feels no compulsion to obey nor rebel the authority
PHB The Nine Alignments p. 105: basically, he just tags along with whatever seems to be a good idea
DMG Mystic Thurge p. 192: he mainly devotes himself to obsession with magical lore and travelling to the end of the earth to learn some new arcane secret or divine insights
Unlike a druid, my character choose not to commit himself philosophically to neutrality, i.e. seeing good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous absolutes, and advocating the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. My character WILL NOT do all those nonsense which some neutral characters may do, i.e. a druid.Is there any plausible reason for me to choose another alignment for my character?
Lord_Anthrax
11-20-04, 12:54 PM It's not a core rule, but not a bad rule of thumb to try and enforce some party cohesion.
Falkus
11-20-04, 01:43 PM As others have said, it's not a bad idea. Not really any different from a DM saying good characters only, except this gives the party more leeway in their alignments.
crazysamaritan
11-21-04, 01:11 AM Is there any plausible reason for me to choose another alignment for my character?
You might choose NG or NE, but it really doesn't matter. You're a bit selfish, but it doesn't look like you won't go out of your way to help another. You're neutral b/c you don't care, not because you are balanced.
Shemeska the Marauder
11-25-04, 08:11 AM You're a bit selfish, but it doesn't look like you won't go out of your way to help another. You're neutral b/c you don't care, not because you are balanced.

Each of the cardinal alignments have different aspects besides the oversimplified ones given in the PHB. True neutral can embody a balance of alignments or it can be an apathetic or even xenophobic outlook of wanting no part of others one way or the other. A neutral evil character can certainly perform glowingly good actions in the name of enlightened self interest. The same NE character can be a sociopathic murderer or simply a selfish and self interested miser. NE could be calm, cultured and polite, wanting a universe of perfection but a universe devoid of mercy.

Don't be bound absolutely to the definitions as presented in the PHB, they're great for novice players but as I said, they're only one possible aspect or interpretation of those alignments.

And the DM is being ham handed about the alignment restrictions on the party. Party cohesion is great, but alignment doesn't much matter so much as common goals or something else to tie the party together unless they're all capable of detecting alignments and willing to kill on sight based on any alignment conflicts, which in most cases is plain dumb.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
subpneuma 11-19-04, 11:53 PM	Is there such a thing? According to my DM, there is an "alignment axis" rule. For example, if the core alignment of the party is Neutral Evil, the other party members can choose only from one of these alignments: Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil True Neutral I can't seem to find the rule. If there is indeed such a thing, can someone please direct me to the source, i.e. which book and which page. If not, can someone please enlighten me on the subject. Thank you.
Satans Spawn 11-20-04, 12:50 AM	So far as I know, there is no rule for that. I think your DM is either pulling your chain, or would like to keep the party within the same general alignment.
Arcen 11-20-04, 02:16 AM	Probably a house rule of his. Doesn't sound like a bad idea actually. It would keep from have parties tear themselves apart due to alignment.
Dougan Axehammer 11-20-04, 02:35 AM	Is there such a thing? According to my DM, there is an "alignment axis" rule. For example, if the core alignment of the party is Neutral Evil, the other party members can choose only from one of these alignments: Lawful Evil Neutral Evil Chaotic Evil True Neutral I can't seem to find the rule. If there is indeed such a thing, can someone please direct me to the source, i.e. which book and which page. If not, can someone please enlighten me on the subject. Thank you. Actually, there is a rule, though it is not core. It was created for "Pool of Radience: Return to Myth Drannor", the new computer game for D&D (and the first to use the 3rd Edition rule set.) It allowed the party to have relatively similar points of view to prevent party derision or conflict (for example LG Paladin and CE cleric.) Maybe your DM just wants to do away with similar problems.
crazysamaritan 11-20-04, 03:30 AM	Only problem is... It's metagaming (IMO) to agree if you have the same alignment. CG and CG can disagree with each other just fine, even become enemies if one believes what the other is doing is wrong. Completely wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that. The only problem you might get is with paladin and evil characters. I still say it's a fine house-rule, though.
Thorak 11-20-04, 12:28 PM	Actually, there is a rule, though it is not core. It was created for "Pool of Radience: Return to Myth Drannor", the new computer game for D&D (and the first to use the 3rd Edition rule set.) It allowed the party to have relatively similar points of view to prevent party derision or conflict (for example LG Paladin and CE cleric.) Maybe your DM just wants to do away with similar problems. Technically, it was created for the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG. Which, I'll add, also uses the 3rd edition ruleset, as did Neverwinter Nights. PoR: RtMD isn't the first by any means, but there's some hope they'll actually get a decent storyline in there and fix the massive engine bugs ToEE had (since it's using that engine; it's a great engine, just needs to be fully debugged like it wasn't for ToEE). Oh, and it's a ridiculous rule. For some reason, it thinks that a LG and a CG character can get along fine if the party alignment is NG, but not if the party alignment is anything else. I agree there should be some limits to character alignments, unless you discuss with your DM and they both know what you want to do and why it won't screw with the party. For instance, it's perfectly possible to play an Evil wizard in a Good party. What they're doing for the right reasons, he's doing because he gets good money/survives longer than alone/knows he can trust them/enjoys their company. Sure, if he's caught by the enemy, he'll crack and spill his guts to avoid getting tortured in all likelihood, but being Evil doesn't mean you have to be anti-party. For an entirely selfish person, a party represents people who protect you for free, all you have to do is be nice and help them in return. It's cheaper than mercenaries, and more trustworthy. They would only consider screwing a party member if they thought the reward would offset the loss of the party. In the above example, living longer without the party is obviously better than dying nobly, so he cracks. But if he's offered a bunch of money to betray them? Forget it. He'll get more money by helping them over the long run.
subpneuma 11-20-04, 12:49 PM	My future party members: Lawful Evil Undead Blackguard Neutral Evil Human Sorcerer Neutral Evil Elven Cleric True Neutral Human Shugenja Chaotic Evil Mindflayer Pyrokineticist I am planning to play a True Neutral Shugenja/Sorcerer/Mystic Thurge. Hence some of the players have commented that though my character's alignment is in accordance with the alignment axis rule, it is not adivisable. Their reasoning: Can you please try to imagine a scene where a True Neutral character will come into conflict with an evil party, for example: we deciding to burn down the whole forest just to smoke the enemy out we deciding to slaughter a whole bunch of innocent children or animals just for the fun of it. Won't these actions go against your believe of preserving the balance?My reply: Please read page 104 of the PHB and reconsider your viewpoint. A true neutral character may have compunctions against those actions but my character is committed to the party by personal relationships, most likely to the Blackguard. That is how I may want my background story to tie in. PHB Good vs. Evil p. 104: my character may sacrifice himself to protect the party members, but not strangers PHB Law vs. Chaos p. 104: he feels no compulsion to obey nor rebel the authority PHB The Nine Alignments p. 105: basically, he just tags along with whatever seems to be a good idea DMG Mystic Thurge p. 192: he mainly devotes himself to obsession with magical lore and travelling to the end of the earth to learn some new arcane secret or divine insights Unlike a druid, my character choose not to commit himself philosophically to neutrality, i.e. seeing good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous absolutes, and advocating the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. My character WILL NOT do all those nonsense which some neutral characters may do, i.e. a druid.Is there any plausible reason for me to choose another alignment for my character?
Lord_Anthrax 11-20-04, 12:54 PM	It's not a core rule, but not a bad rule of thumb to try and enforce some party cohesion.
Falkus 11-20-04, 01:43 PM	As others have said, it's not a bad idea. Not really any different from a DM saying good characters only, except this gives the party more leeway in their alignments.
crazysamaritan 11-21-04, 01:11 AM	Is there any plausible reason for me to choose another alignment for my character? You might choose NG or NE, but it really doesn't matter. You're a bit selfish, but it doesn't look like you won't go out of your way to help another. You're neutral b/c you don't care, not because you are balanced.
Shemeska the Marauder 11-25-04, 08:11 AM	You're a bit selfish, but it doesn't look like you won't go out of your way to help another. You're neutral b/c you don't care, not because you are balanced. Each of the cardinal alignments have different aspects besides the oversimplified ones given in the PHB. True neutral can embody a balance of alignments or it can be an apathetic or even xenophobic outlook of wanting no part of others one way or the other. A neutral evil character can certainly perform glowingly good actions in the name of enlightened self interest. The same NE character can be a sociopathic murderer or simply a selfish and self interested miser. NE could be calm, cultured and polite, wanting a universe of perfection but a universe devoid of mercy. Don't be bound absolutely to the definitions as presented in the PHB, they're great for novice players but as I said, they're only one possible aspect or interpretation of those alignments. And the DM is being ham handed about the alignment restrictions on the party. Party cohesion is great, but alignment doesn't much matter so much as common goals or something else to tie the party together unless they're all capable of detecting alignments and willing to kill on sight based on any alignment conflicts, which in most cases is plain dumb.