Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sadrx Mar 23, 2006 16:13:54	This isn't a new system. In fact, this isn't even a change to the current system. What follows is merely a discussion on one way the alignment system of D&D can be handled to allow players to get the most depth out of their characters. Nothing I bring up in this post is actually new, and many of you may already see alignment in this very way, but I have found that this little document helps a lot in explaining to new players how the alignment system needn't be as restrictive as they first think. And now on to my pretentious title: Alignment and a person's motives are not the same thing. A character's alignment describes his or her "moral and personal attitudes."* It is one's attitude -- that's all. To those who live on the material plane, it is not some supernatural conviction, but instead, alignment describes a character's outlook or position on things. A character's alignment does not force him or her to do something; alignment is merely one's sentiments. Being zealous, preachy, or overly convicted to one's alignment is not mandatory. What really motivates a character to action can be entirely separate from his or her alignment. Good people can even be selfishly motivated, and characters of all alignments can be motivated to be friendly or impolite. Example I: Alignment in a Group of Bandits. Situation: A group of individuals are working together to infiltrate locations with the motive to steal money and expensive goods for financial gain. This group of individuals of diverse alignments get along fine in this situation where their motives align. These long-term friends recognize that they are able to achieve the most financial gain by working together, and so they easily tolerate each other's attitudes. As stereotypically gruff bandits, however, each of these example characters are selfish and unfriendly to those outside of the group, regardless of their alignment. The good bandit is likely: to not take much more than he needs; to donate part of his personal disposable income to those who are more needy; to rarely make targets of those who either are in unfortunate circumstances or use their resources to help those in unfortunate circumstances; to never injure the helpless nor kill for financial gain. The lawful bandit is likely: to endorse a structured group and the fair dividing of gains; to adhere strictly to personal codes; to prefer planned strikes to chance ones; to break laws only with deliberation. The chaotic bandit is likely: to follow whims or instincts rather than plans; to care little for organization or structure; to break laws without consideration. The evil bandit is likely: to pick targets without considering morals; to strike using the most effective means to attain her goals; to eliminate threats without hesitation; to waste no time on the helpless or dying; to keep all her personal income. Possible Conflicts: If one of the bandits is strongly selfish, a conflict can arise as he struggles for personal gain at the loss of the others. If one of the bandits is didactic, she may initiate a conflict between herself and another bandit by trying to force her morals upon the other. Two bandits may have a clash of attitudes and ideas where each believes the other's methods are less effective or even endangering the group. Each of these possible conflicts can arise out of differences in the bandits' "moral and personal attitudes" when their alignments are their primary motivation. If all of the individuals involved in the possible conflicts listed above value the group, their friendships, or even a shared motive more than their personal motives, however, the bandit group of contrasting alignments can survive these conflicts. If members of the group are not so heavily motivated by their alignments, they can easily work out an understanding. A clash of personal attitudes may fuel arguments between friends, but two individuals don't necessarily split up just because they have differing outlooks. As Example I demonstrates, individuals of all alignments can make-up and even thrive in a group that takes on a traditionally unscrupulous role. They can, however, do the same in a very differently motivated group. The next example briefly looks at how similar characters might act in a more noble organization. Example II: Alignment in a Group of Crusaders. Situation: A group of individuals are working together to cleanse unfortunate areas of the taint of the undead. As a group of companions who have been through thick-and-thin, they tolerate each other's attitudes even when moral debates come up. The bandits stayed together through such conflicts mostly because of a strong camaraderie, but the crusaders on the other hand only have an on-the-job relationship with each other. As crusaders, they are all stereotypically considerate and mostly pleasant, however, and so do enjoy each other's company even though their personal morals sometimes collide. All of the crusaders are specifically working together, though, because they share a common motive. Each has a strong hatred for and a desire to eliminate the undead. The good crusader is likely: to donate the spoils that he does not need to a good cause; to protect the innocent; to never kill the living. The lawful crusader is likely: to endorse a structured group; to adhere strictly to personal codes; to prefer planned strikes to chance ones; to damage or desecrate ancient holy sites only with deliberation. The chaotic crusader is likely: to follow whims or instincts rather than plans; to care little for organization or structure; to damage or desecrate ancient holy sites without consideration. The evil crusader is likely: to do whatever is necessary to defeat the undead; to waste no time on the helpless or dying; to keep all spoils of her victory It is significant to note that the traits that are described above are very similar to those listed for the bandits -- this is of course because a good character is moral, a lawful one responsible, a chaotic one free-spirited, and an evil on immoral regardless of his or her motivations. If characters were defined solely based on their alignment, it would make sense to draw lines and declare that such and such alignments could never work together, but a rich game develops out of characters who have more detail to them than just their "moral and personal attitudes." Alignments are significant, but characters have personalities and other motivations too, and these, more than anything else, define a character’s role within the party and the game. * - The Player's Handbook, page 103.
#2 wotc_mel Mar 27, 2006 18:07:49	*bump*