Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 RustedKitsune Jul 19, 2014 17:25:35	Love it or hate it, Alignment has been part of D&D since first edition. This two letter code, originating in the absolute morality of epic fantasy, has been the cause of more arguments than poorly written rules. “Today, 15 Paladins were found guilty of mass murder...” Using Alignment has always been tricky – many spells and class features depended on it, and there were arguments for objective or subjective morality in deciding what it meant. For many, killing evil creatures was a good act; conversely, others required that you show mercy to keep being good. With the advent of D&D5E declaring alignment an optional rule, we now have an opportunity to swap it out without having to rewrite class features, spells, and various other effects. "Have you filled out the opinion poll yet?" - The Attitude System Based on real-life, the Attitude System requires some work for PCs (monsters and NPCs will be covered in a bit). Attitudes are what your character thinks about a subject - ranging anywhere from the Races, Nations, and Religions to the Value of Friends and specific Crimes. What you think about the subject, your Attitude, is covered in a 7-point spectrum, ranging from Highly Positive (+3) to Indifferent (0) to Highly Negative (-3). And you can attach greater clarification to your attitude with Modifiers, which can be anything like Friends, Allies, Enemies, Slaves, and so on. With this 3 part system, you can describe pretty much any alignment in the game; Lawful has Law+1-3 and Authority+1-3, Chaos has +0 to -3 on those subjects, the Attitudes of the Good place higher value on the Value of Others, while Evil puts a negative value to them - or even a positive value with the Modifier of Slaves. And you can describe what were the variations within an alignment - Positive Law, Value of Others, and a Negative Tradition shows that the character is what's commonly called Lawful Good - but they reject tradition and seek out new ways. We can also describe real world political movements and ideas without hamhandedly shoving them into the 9 alignments - as an example, Anarchists put a high value on the Value of Others, and on Law, but they have a negative view on rulers; they view life as worth defending, and think that people should rule themselves, with laws being decided by the community. Libertarians have a neutral view on everything except Law and Authority - which they view negatively - and Value of Self and Value of Money - which they view positively - and modify everything else with "Pay me to have an opinion". "Today, the King released a new series of polls, seeking to understand..." - The Question of Subjects What are Subjects? What do they cover? Subjects can also be called Issues - they are the issues and questions that permeate the world around the PCs. Each Subject should ask a pertinent question - how does the PC view their Own Race? Other Races? Do they believe in their Religion? Should Other Religions exist? Are Other Nations friends or just enemies waiting to be swallowed by their Own Nation? Do they think people require a Ruler? Are Rules neccesary? Let's look at some sample subjects: (subjects that ask about groups of things can be either blanket statements, or the answer could be per specific portion of that group - Other Races includes Elves and Dwarves, as an example) The Big Picture: These subjects cover the big picture - races, nations, and religions Your Race Other Races Your Religion Other Religions Your Nation Other Nations Rules Group: How do you view rules and rulers? This covers not just codified law and rulers, but also cultural traditions and elders. Law Authority Tradition Values Group: What is the value of something? More specifically, do you think that these things are valuable? Value of Self Value of Others Value of Money Value of Friends Value of Life Crimes Group: What are your views on crimes? More specifically, do you feel that these crimes should be punished? Crimes against Self Crimes against Others Crimes against Property Crimes against Authority Honor Group: What sort of restrictions do you put on your behaviour? Do you view any of those restrictions as desirable? Honesty: Will you speak the truth at all times? Sincerity: Do you mean what you say, and will you keep your word? Courtesy: How important is it to be polite? Compassion: Is it important to be kind and helpful to others? Loyalty: Will you stick by others, even through difficult circumstances?   Other Questions: Monsterous Races: Which races do you see as little more than monsters? Goverments: Is there a type of government that you like or dislike? Specific Crimes: What specific crimes do you view as punishable?   Note: When discussing open-ended questions (such as the Values and Crimes groups), a clarification was added to show which forms of responses were to be given a Positive Value, and which were to be given a Negative Value "Citizens across the nation are reporting a positive reaction to increasing relations with..." - Attitudes What are the Attitudes? The range was mentioned before, but what do those levels mean? Well, let's take a look. Highly Positive (+3): I think about this subject with such Positivity that I will almost never acknowledge anything about it as Negative. Very Positive (+2): I think about the majority of this subject Positively, but view a few aspects as Negative. Positive (+1): I view the subject favorably, but see some parts of it as Negative. Indifferent/Neutral (+0): I have either no views on the subject, or I have an equally Positive and Negative view on it. Negative (-1): Overall, I view this subject with disdain, but can see some Positive aspects to it. Very Negative (-2): There are very few things about this subject that I like - I view it as a bad thing in this world. Highly Negative (-3): I hate the subject to the point of refusing to see anything Positive about it - it disgusts me As we can see, Positive attitudes range from "It's good, but can be better" to "This is the best, and it can go no higher or better", while Negative attitudes go from "It could be worse - at least there are some reddeming qualities" to "This disgusts me, and should not exist". The listed definitions are good for some subjects, but not for others - but the meaning of the terms remain. "In response to yesterday's court decision, citizens are taking to the streets to show..." - Attitude Modifiers So you have a subject, you have an attitude towards it, but you want to describe it with greater clarity. Modifers help with that - they describe the specific form of attitude that you have towards the subject. In some cases, the modifier can be the attitude. Here's a list of examples: Friendly Hostile Allies Enemies Slaves Necessary Adding modifiers can help you describe complicated concepts quickly. A thief could have a negative view on punishing crimes of theft - but he could still view the laws as a necessary evil. A despot could view halflings positively - but only as slaves. A very odd Paladin of a god of undeath could have Unintelligent Undead +1 - Disgusting, Slaves; she has positive views on the use of the undead, sees them as useful labor, but they disgust her (really, they should be given something to help with that unsanitary rotting away part, and maybe an air-freshener around their neck too). "Citing the wishes of the effected citizens, and irrevocable philosophical differences, the King declared the Northern Provinces a free state..." - Using Attitudes In The Game World "Okay, we have all this stuff that describes what the PCs think. But I don't want to do that for all my NPCs and monsters, and my players don't want to have to think too much on this." I hear your cry. One of the things that you can do when creating a campaign world is to create the general attitudes of the major cultures and nations, which often are racial. You can then use this for NPCs, and your players have a basis to work from. Another thing to do is to simply keep the two letter alignment code, and simply write down the attitudes that each one has in your game world. Then you can note the deviations within the alignments. You can expand or contract the attitudes list as you wish in your campaign - just don't be angry at the player that writes down more of their character's attitudes.Some players will try and game the attitude system by being indifferent to everything on paper, and chaotic murderhobos in-game. Just simply watch what they do, write down the attitudes they are showing, and then tell them that there is absolutely no mechanical benefit to being indifferent to everything - because there actually is no mechnical benefit; like alignment, attitudes are merely aids to roleplaying. The person that goes "meh" when asked about anything is seen as apathetic - and apathetic people don't go adventuring. "And from this day forth, I swear to..." - A Note On Honor and Honor Codes What is honor? Cue the arguement that focuses entirely on what is honorable behaviour. Every honor code, every idea of honor, all share the same central concept: the willing restriction of behaviour beyond what law requires. Honor is traditonal, cultural, unbound by law and yet the basis for it. An honorable person places greater restrictions on their behaviour than a dishonorable person. The reasons for following an honor code vary - some people do it because it is expected of them, others follow one because they wish to. Honor is related to attitude - it can be seen as the attitude towards the behaviours and ideals that you have sworn to avoid or live by. Usage of Honor in the game is tricky, and will depend on the group as a whole - I will cover the subject more throughly at a later date, when I can sumon up enough energy to think properly.
#2 Dreamstryder Jul 31, 2014 14:08:09	I'd simplify attitudes to Unquestioned +/-, Open +/-, and Neutral; I find it more straightforward to grasp a quality than a quantity here.   People are a tangle of shoulds and shouldn'ts because they hold different senses of what is important, and I wonder if many attitudes would actually describe symptoms of a greater ideal, and we should really focus on those most descriptive 1-3 things cherished by the character, indicative of why they're a fun addition to the game.   Don't rank them, either; that's to be decided by the characters during play; for instance, a character will tell you what they feel obligated or duty-sworn to do, what "the right thing to do" would be regardless of duty or self-interest, or what their own desires are, but seeing what they'll do when those come into conflict is part of the fun of a character-driven game.
#3 Elton74 Aug 01, 2014 7:54:24	I'd probably dump both and adapt the Traits and Passions system from Pendragon.