Help with an alignment system - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Help with an alignment system

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
ozzymandias
Oct 07, 2011 19:15:51
I'm working on running a Planescape setting with 4th Edition rules. My intent is to create an alignment system that is 1) based on the classic AD&D alignments, and 2) that provides some form of measurable game benefit. The final product does not have to be an exact copy, nor does it even need to closely reflect the original. All that matters is that it is something that can be fitted into the Planescape setting.

I have a few ideas already, inspired in part by discussion on this and other forums.

For example, the Wereworlf game (1st edition, I think) had a way of keeping track of and rewarding character behavior. The books outline specific actions and how they relate to different measures of Renown. I might use something like this, whereby the four components of Alignment (good, evil, law and chaos) are tracked by the player with a point system. More points in one component means a leaning toward that alignment.  For example, a lawful good character would start with 10 points divided between law and good (most likely 5 each). If the character performs notably good acts (based on concrete examples), he advances his good rating.

I see problems already, though, which is why I'm soliciting help. What kind of actions can I define as good, or evil, or whatever? Should I look for different qualifying adjectives, like honor or glory? (Those two are terms used in Werewolf, BTW.) Once I've decided how to define alignment, what actions belong to each category? What sort of benefits can I provide to characters for having an alignment score?

For the purposes of this discussion, I welcome thoughts and opinions about the old alignment system, including stong negative ones, because it helps to identify the problems. After all, you can't fix something if you don't know what's wrong with it. However, I want it known that I intend to fix the problems, because, as I see it, alignment is integral to the Planescape experience. I could simply use 2nd edition rules, but I've grown fond of 4th edition mechanics, and I'd rather my players get some use of the books they've invested in.

Final note: if you know of a thread that already discusses these concepts, please let me know. I've been searching, but I haven't found any so far.  Any help anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated.
#2
rampant
Oct 07, 2011 20:01:55 The problem with mechanical advantages/disadvantages is that most players will tend towards nuetral in order to be resistant to most forms of alignment attack. Easier to avoid the problem entire in there minds.

Now your system where by you track their alignment might be workable however alignment has traditinally been the player's domain and I have no idea how they'll react to letting the DM arbitrate that. I mean DMs used to be able to change your aligment if they felt you were getting out of line with what the character sheet said, but that's not the same as micromanaging it, nor does this account for alternate interpretations of alignment. For example does overthrowing a legally appointed tyrant with no regard for the laws of the land except the ones that put him in power count as a chaotic or lawful act?

The primary concern of course is the extent of the benefits and penalties.

Just how much more/less effective is a chaotic power against lawful targets? If the two sides cancel each other out what's the point? if they're not balanced then make sure the players know that so if they wanna play a unfavored alignment they won't feel so cheated when they start falling behind those who played to whatever alignment wins in your system.

My advice would be to give slightly different benefits to each alignment.
#3
Neutronium_Dragon
Oct 08, 2011 4:49:26 TBH, you're probably better off avoiding L/C/G/E as alignments precisely because they're so vague and often self-contradictory. Werewolf uses things like Honor and Glory because they're reasonably specific and much easier to codify. Likewise, the old Ultima games' system of virtues (Honesty, Compassion, Valor, etc) were much easier to cope with (and the mechanical effects would be much easier to connect as well). Look through systems like those and use/modify something that's reasonably appropriate - though keep in mind that fiddly number tracking in a P&P group context ends up adding a lot of overhead with each thing you add to the list.
#4
ozzymandias
Oct 08, 2011 9:38:42 So I'm looking for other systems that use easily definable attributes. For each, if I'm going to employ a point tracking system, I need a short list of clearly identifiable actions associated with each attribute. If new actions come up in game (and I expect they will), I refer to those lists for similarities, and if I can't find any, I probably ignore the action until such time that I can discuss it with the players (without disrupting game play).

However, I can't completely ignore l/c/g/e, because they're integral parts of the Planescape setting. If I replace them, that's fine, but I need to do it such that I can assign an "alignment" to the different planes.

Any ideas for benefits? In keeping with 4th Edition design philosophy, I don't want to penalize players for acting according to their character; I do want to reward them, and the benefits should be meaningful, but not overpowering. I could give them bonuses against NPCs/monsters of opposing alignment (I'll have to apply the alignment model to monsters anyway, which I'll do on a case-by-case basis), and if I don't give monsters bonuses against the characters, then the players shouldn't feel as though things are unnecessarily (or arbitrarily) made harder by the system. Alternatively, I could create a feat tree for each major alignment component, which gives the players choices and encourages actively tracking their alignment. Or I could use the action point system to generate benefits.

Thoughts?
#5
rampant
Oct 08, 2011 12:36:34 Well there's the new UA article about honor, maybe that could be helpful?

Actually yeah...

What about a system not about morals and ethics in general but adherence to a specific code. Model it off the concordance system of the artifacts maybe?

Bushido, Old Code, Taint?, Pack law, is this at all helpful?
#6
salla
Oct 08, 2011 14:40:30

However, I can't completely ignore l/c/g/e, because they're integral parts of the Planescape setting.

Why?
#7
ozzymandias
Oct 08, 2011 14:52:25 In Planescape, each plane has an alignment. The plane's essence is defined, in part, by its relationship to its alignment. Its position on the Great Wheel, and thus its connection to neighboring planes, is also influenced by alignment. For example, the Abyss is Chaotic Evil, and is bordered on one side by Pandemonium (CE/CN) and Carceri (NE/CE). A realm, town or layer of the Abyss may vary from the plane as a whole, but if it varies too much (becomes too chaotic without regard for evil, or too evil without regard for individualism), it could slide into another plane. (Granted, this happens very rarely, but it is a possibility, while locations in the Prime Material worlds cannot relocate without extremely powerful magic.)

Admittedly, the Abyss might not be the best example, but the point is that each of the Outer Planes is practically alive.  They have personalities, and they can influence thoughts and decisions. At the same time, natives and visitors can influence a plane, if they have enough numbers; theoretically, Mount Celestia could cease to exist if all of its people left. Beyond this explanation, I'm not sure how to describe it without getting into some potentially complicated theories. Maybe this could help: on the Outer Planes, belief shapes existence, and simply existing can shape belief. Each plane (according to the original source material, which I'm trying to preserve as best I can) has a personality and an alignment. If I construct a new alignment system, and it works for my players, that's great; but if I can't make it fit with the planes themselves, then I've lost a major piece of the flavor of Planescape.

On the other hand, if I construct a system that mimics the old alignments (good = honor, evil = self-serving, etc.), then I have a way to translate the alignment of the planes into something that matches the new system.

I also--kind of, sort of, maybe--envision a system where planewalkers are affected by the alignment of a plane. But I'm still toying with how this works while not penalizing the players.
#8
rampant
Oct 08, 2011 15:44:20 Ok... That's not as much of a problem as you think it is. You just need to separate the planar system from the aligment system and replace them both.
#9
pluisjen
Oct 08, 2011 16:01:08 I'd seriously suggest going with a virtue/vice system like World of Darkness has. Take the seven key virtues and vices, and have each character pick one of each. Then whenever they act in accordance to their virtue they get a minor bonus (like a +2 on a d20 roll during that turn) and whenever they act in accordince with their they get a major bonus (like an action point that has to be spent during the encounter)

(Put a limit on it though so it doesn't get out of hand)
#10
Neutronium_Dragon
Oct 08, 2011 18:08:36 I would suggest ditching the wheel and its alignments and - rather than going specifically for virtues and vices - work with the idea that any abstract concept can (and probably does, somewhere) generate a plane. The individual elements within it might not be sustainable/livable in an ongoing sense, but they serve as representations of the abstract and can be interacted with by a visitor.

These abstracts don't even need to be particularly moral/philosophical: sure, there's one representing "honor" somewhere, but there's also one representing "apprehension" and one representing "five" and (etc).

This also makes PC interactions easier to deal with, since you don't need to deal with point tracking: if they manage to grasp and/or solve the specific representation that they end up dealing with, they gain something from the experience. (A common thing in the current game books seems to be a one-shot or limited-duration utility power. In this case it could be persistent until they 'attune' themselves to a different abstract.)

Which things they master (or fail to) throughout the course of their adventures becomes an alternative to alignment tracking, as is much broader in scope than alignment could ever hope to be.
#11
salla
Oct 08, 2011 20:52:20
Ok... That's not as much of a problem as you think it is. You just need to separate the planar system from the aligment system and replace them both.

Yeah, this.
#12
ozzymandias
Oct 10, 2011 11:28:12
I would suggest ditching the wheel and its alignments and - rather than going specifically for virtues and vices - work with the idea that any abstract concept can (and probably does, somewhere) generate a plane. The individual elements within it might not be sustainable/livable in an ongoing sense, but they serve as representations of the abstract and can be interacted with by a visitor. These abstracts don't even need to be particularly moral/philosophical: sure, there's one representing "honor" somewhere, but there's also one representing "apprehension" and one representing "five" and (etc). This also makes PC interactions easier to deal with, since you don't need to deal with point tracking: if they manage to grasp and/or solve the specific representation that they end up dealing with, they gain something from the experience. (A common thing in the current game books seems to be a one-shot or limited-duration utility power. In this case it could be persistent until they 'attune' themselves to a different abstract.) Which things they master (or fail to) throughout the course of their adventures becomes an alternative to alignment tracking, as is much broader in scope than alignment could ever hope to be.

I like some of your ideas. What I wouldn't change is the Great Wheel concept, but not because it's a sacred cow, or anything like that.  I see the Great Wheel as an intellectual construct used by sages and planewalkers to describe the organization of the multiverse. Think of it this way: no mere mortal (and probably very few immortals) is capable of "looking" at the planes from a distance. It's not like they can build a spaceship, fly about the planes and look out the window at the Wheel. Instead, the Wheel is an abstract concept, an allegory for the 'verse, based on the personality/alignment of each plane, its relationship to its brethren, and the strength of its connection to other locations (through portals and pathways).

Since I want to run the game in 4th Edition, I decided to include the World Axis cosmology as an alternative explanation for the organization of the planes.  The Axis is a newly emerging philosophy that takes into account a different emphasis on planar relationships. The Wheel is the old; the Axis is the new; and both are legitimate as a way to travel the planes. A character who sees the Wheel as accurate will look for portals from the Abyss to Pandemonium, or will travel the Styx between those planes. A character who sees the Axis as accurate will instead think that travel between the Abyss and Pandemonium is complicated by the fact that they lie in two different realms: the Elemental Chaos and the Astral Sea, respectively. (Or I could place Pandemonium in the Chaos, and then travel between the two isn't so complicated.)

So I want to hold on to the alignment system because it was a part of the Great Wheel. However, I like the idea of assigning a concept/philosophy to each plane (or each plane that I want to deal with), then handing out a benefit to players who "get it." My next issue would then be: which philosophies do I emphasize? I'd probably look to the Factions and planes of Planescape first, then to real-world philosophies to see if I could create a plane out of them.

Still, as fun as the idea is, it sounds like more work than I'm willing (or able) to put forth. I'll mull it over, but in the meantime, are there any more ideas about how to quantify/qualify the old alignment system?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ozzymandias Oct 07, 2011 19:15:51	I'm working on running a Planescape setting with 4th Edition rules. My intent is to create an alignment system that is 1) based on the classic AD&D alignments, and 2) that provides some form of measurable game benefit. The final product does not have to be an exact copy, nor does it even need to closely reflect the original. All that matters is that it is something that can be fitted into the Planescape setting. I have a few ideas already, inspired in part by discussion on this and other forums. For example, the Wereworlf game (1st edition, I think) had a way of keeping track of and rewarding character behavior. The books outline specific actions and how they relate to different measures of Renown. I might use something like this, whereby the four components of Alignment (good, evil, law and chaos) are tracked by the player with a point system. More points in one component means a leaning toward that alignment. For example, a lawful good character would start with 10 points divided between law and good (most likely 5 each). If the character performs notably good acts (based on concrete examples), he advances his good rating. I see problems already, though, which is why I'm soliciting help. What kind of actions can I define as good, or evil, or whatever? Should I look for different qualifying adjectives, like honor or glory? (Those two are terms used in Werewolf, BTW.) Once I've decided how to define alignment, what actions belong to each category? What sort of benefits can I provide to characters for having an alignment score? For the purposes of this discussion, I welcome thoughts and opinions about the old alignment system, including stong negative ones, because it helps to identify the problems. After all, you can't fix something if you don't know what's wrong with it. However, I want it known that I intend to fix the problems, because, as I see it, alignment is integral to the Planescape experience. I could simply use 2nd edition rules, but I've grown fond of 4th edition mechanics, and I'd rather my players get some use of the books they've invested in. Final note: if you know of a thread that already discusses these concepts, please let me know. I've been searching, but I haven't found any so far. Any help anyone can provide will be greatly appreciated.
#2 rampant Oct 07, 2011 20:01:55	The problem with mechanical advantages/disadvantages is that most players will tend towards nuetral in order to be resistant to most forms of alignment attack. Easier to avoid the problem entire in there minds. Now your system where by you track their alignment might be workable however alignment has traditinally been the player's domain and I have no idea how they'll react to letting the DM arbitrate that. I mean DMs used to be able to change your aligment if they felt you were getting out of line with what the character sheet said, but that's not the same as micromanaging it, nor does this account for alternate interpretations of alignment. For example does overthrowing a legally appointed tyrant with no regard for the laws of the land except the ones that put him in power count as a chaotic or lawful act? The primary concern of course is the extent of the benefits and penalties. Just how much more/less effective is a chaotic power against lawful targets? If the two sides cancel each other out what's the point? if they're not balanced then make sure the players know that so if they wanna play a unfavored alignment they won't feel so cheated when they start falling behind those who played to whatever alignment wins in your system. My advice would be to give slightly different benefits to each alignment.
#3 Neutronium_Dragon Oct 08, 2011 4:49:26	TBH, you're probably better off avoiding L/C/G/E as alignments precisely because they're so vague and often self-contradictory. Werewolf uses things like Honor and Glory because they're reasonably specific and much easier to codify. Likewise, the old Ultima games' system of virtues (Honesty, Compassion, Valor, etc) were much easier to cope with (and the mechanical effects would be much easier to connect as well). Look through systems like those and use/modify something that's reasonably appropriate - though keep in mind that fiddly number tracking in a P&P group context ends up adding a lot of overhead with each thing you add to the list.
#4 ozzymandias Oct 08, 2011 9:38:42	So I'm looking for other systems that use easily definable attributes. For each, if I'm going to employ a point tracking system, I need a short list of clearly identifiable actions associated with each attribute. If new actions come up in game (and I expect they will), I refer to those lists for similarities, and if I can't find any, I probably ignore the action until such time that I can discuss it with the players (without disrupting game play). However, I can't completely ignore l/c/g/e, because they're integral parts of the Planescape setting. If I replace them, that's fine, but I need to do it such that I can assign an "alignment" to the different planes. Any ideas for benefits? In keeping with 4th Edition design philosophy, I don't want to penalize players for acting according to their character; I do want to reward them, and the benefits should be meaningful, but not overpowering. I could give them bonuses against NPCs/monsters of opposing alignment (I'll have to apply the alignment model to monsters anyway, which I'll do on a case-by-case basis), and if I don't give monsters bonuses against the characters, then the players shouldn't feel as though things are unnecessarily (or arbitrarily) made harder by the system. Alternatively, I could create a feat tree for each major alignment component, which gives the players choices and encourages actively tracking their alignment. Or I could use the action point system to generate benefits. Thoughts?
#5 rampant Oct 08, 2011 12:36:34	Well there's the new UA article about honor, maybe that could be helpful? Actually yeah... What about a system not about morals and ethics in general but adherence to a specific code. Model it off the concordance system of the artifacts maybe? Bushido, Old Code, Taint?, Pack law, is this at all helpful?
#6 salla Oct 08, 2011 14:40:30	However, I can't completely ignore l/c/g/e, because they're integral parts of the Planescape setting. Why?
#7 ozzymandias Oct 08, 2011 14:52:25	In Planescape, each plane has an alignment. The plane's essence is defined, in part, by its relationship to its alignment. Its position on the Great Wheel, and thus its connection to neighboring planes, is also influenced by alignment. For example, the Abyss is Chaotic Evil, and is bordered on one side by Pandemonium (CE/CN) and Carceri (NE/CE). A realm, town or layer of the Abyss may vary from the plane as a whole, but if it varies too much (becomes too chaotic without regard for evil, or too evil without regard for individualism), it could slide into another plane. (Granted, this happens very rarely, but it is a possibility, while locations in the Prime Material worlds cannot relocate without extremely powerful magic.) Admittedly, the Abyss might not be the best example, but the point is that each of the Outer Planes is practically alive. They have personalities, and they can influence thoughts and decisions. At the same time, natives and visitors can influence a plane, if they have enough numbers; theoretically, Mount Celestia could cease to exist if all of its people left. Beyond this explanation, I'm not sure how to describe it without getting into some potentially complicated theories. Maybe this could help: on the Outer Planes, belief shapes existence, and simply existing can shape belief. Each plane (according to the original source material, which I'm trying to preserve as best I can) has a personality and an alignment. If I construct a new alignment system, and it works for my players, that's great; but if I can't make it fit with the planes themselves, then I've lost a major piece of the flavor of Planescape. On the other hand, if I construct a system that mimics the old alignments (good = honor, evil = self-serving, etc.), then I have a way to translate the alignment of the planes into something that matches the new system. I also--kind of, sort of, maybe--envision a system where planewalkers are affected by the alignment of a plane. But I'm still toying with how this works while not penalizing the players.
#8 rampant Oct 08, 2011 15:44:20	Ok... That's not as much of a problem as you think it is. You just need to separate the planar system from the aligment system and replace them both.
#9 pluisjen Oct 08, 2011 16:01:08	I'd seriously suggest going with a virtue/vice system like World of Darkness has. Take the seven key virtues and vices, and have each character pick one of each. Then whenever they act in accordance to their virtue they get a minor bonus (like a +2 on a d20 roll during that turn) and whenever they act in accordince with their they get a major bonus (like an action point that has to be spent during the encounter) (Put a limit on it though so it doesn't get out of hand)
#10 Neutronium_Dragon Oct 08, 2011 18:08:36	I would suggest ditching the wheel and its alignments and - rather than going specifically for virtues and vices - work with the idea that any abstract concept can (and probably does, somewhere) generate a plane. The individual elements within it might not be sustainable/livable in an ongoing sense, but they serve as representations of the abstract and can be interacted with by a visitor. These abstracts don't even need to be particularly moral/philosophical: sure, there's one representing "honor" somewhere, but there's also one representing "apprehension" and one representing "five" and (etc). This also makes PC interactions easier to deal with, since you don't need to deal with point tracking: if they manage to grasp and/or solve the specific representation that they end up dealing with, they gain something from the experience. (A common thing in the current game books seems to be a one-shot or limited-duration utility power. In this case it could be persistent until they 'attune' themselves to a different abstract.) Which things they master (or fail to) throughout the course of their adventures becomes an alternative to alignment tracking, as is much broader in scope than alignment could ever hope to be.
#11 salla Oct 08, 2011 20:52:20	Ok... That's not as much of a problem as you think it is. You just need to separate the planar system from the aligment system and replace them both. Yeah, this.
#12 ozzymandias Oct 10, 2011 11:28:12	I would suggest ditching the wheel and its alignments and - rather than going specifically for virtues and vices - work with the idea that any abstract concept can (and probably does, somewhere) generate a plane. The individual elements within it might not be sustainable/livable in an ongoing sense, but they serve as representations of the abstract and can be interacted with by a visitor. These abstracts don't even need to be particularly moral/philosophical: sure, there's one representing "honor" somewhere, but there's also one representing "apprehension" and one representing "five" and (etc). This also makes PC interactions easier to deal with, since you don't need to deal with point tracking: if they manage to grasp and/or solve the specific representation that they end up dealing with, they gain something from the experience. (A common thing in the current game books seems to be a one-shot or limited-duration utility power. In this case it could be persistent until they 'attune' themselves to a different abstract.) Which things they master (or fail to) throughout the course of their adventures becomes an alternative to alignment tracking, as is much broader in scope than alignment could ever hope to be. I like some of your ideas. What I wouldn't change is the Great Wheel concept, but not because it's a sacred cow, or anything like that. I see the Great Wheel as an intellectual construct used by sages and planewalkers to describe the organization of the multiverse. Think of it this way: no mere mortal (and probably very few immortals) is capable of "looking" at the planes from a distance. It's not like they can build a spaceship, fly about the planes and look out the window at the Wheel. Instead, the Wheel is an abstract concept, an allegory for the 'verse, based on the personality/alignment of each plane, its relationship to its brethren, and the strength of its connection to other locations (through portals and pathways). Since I want to run the game in 4th Edition, I decided to include the World Axis cosmology as an alternative explanation for the organization of the planes. The Axis is a newly emerging philosophy that takes into account a different emphasis on planar relationships. The Wheel is the old; the Axis is the new; and both are legitimate as a way to travel the planes. A character who sees the Wheel as accurate will look for portals from the Abyss to Pandemonium, or will travel the Styx between those planes. A character who sees the Axis as accurate will instead think that travel between the Abyss and Pandemonium is complicated by the fact that they lie in two different realms: the Elemental Chaos and the Astral Sea, respectively. (Or I could place Pandemonium in the Chaos, and then travel between the two isn't so complicated.) So I want to hold on to the alignment system because it was a part of the Great Wheel. However, I like the idea of assigning a concept/philosophy to each plane (or each plane that I want to deal with), then handing out a benefit to players who "get it." My next issue would then be: which philosophies do I emphasize? I'd probably look to the Factions and planes of Planescape first, then to real-world philosophies to see if I could create a plane out of them. Still, as fun as the idea is, it sounds like more work than I'm willing (or able) to put forth. I'll mull it over, but in the meantime, are there any more ideas about how to quantify/qualify the old alignment system?