Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2004 4:53:54	There have always been two things about the alignment system that have felt wrong to me. One is that it doesn’t make a difference between shallow belief and deep devotion. )I’m not going to write at all about the other one today.) Does a merchant who’s lawful good because it’s good for his reputation have the same alignment as a holy Paladin who devotes his life to serve the causes of good and law? Does a simple stormtrooper who listened to the mandatory propaganda and does as he is told by default have the same alignment as the evil warlord he serve? A line should be drawn. TO this end, I suggest a third dimension to the alignment system: Conviction. This axis has three levels, just like the good versus evil axis and the law versus chaos axis. On the one hand we have shallow, on the other we have devoted. In between we have, as always, neutral. A person of shallow alignment might not have chosen his alignment at all. He has simply gone with the flow, following whatever alignment that his nation or family expect of him. If he has made a choice at all, then he has probably done it out of convenience. Good alignments get picked because they give a good reputation in the long run and because they end in more pleasant afterlives. Evil alignments get picked because they can be shortcuts to reaching your goals, especially in the short-term, and because they might make people fear you. If you can’t get respected out of love, then the “respect” that fear generates might be better then nothing. Lawful alignments get picked because people want to be protected by the law and don’t want to run into trouble themselves. Chaotic alignments get picked for the freedom they give. Individuals of shallow alignments are usually afraid to die. Evil persons suspect that their choices will put them in the realms of evil gods, and know that they are not in the favor of any such god. Good persons might suspect that their shallow faith will not be enough to land them in a paradise, but as long as we’re only talking about natural death they are generally less afraid of death then the evil guys are. On the other hand, they are generally MORE afraid of being turned undead or otherwise have their souls snatched away. On the whole, shallow individuals are rarely ready to sacrifice themselves. Shallowly good individuals are sometimes eager to become martyrs to ensure their safe arrival in paradise. But that doesn’t truly count. Such a “noble hero” ready to die for the sake of his own eternal pleasure would run away screaming if he faced a real threat, something that might harm his soul and thus demand that he risk making a REAL sacrifice. Many classic kinds of villains are shallow evil. Cowardly, doing anything to survive, and rather turn undead then move on to the afterlife. Also, shallow evil individuals often believe in ethics of good alignments, but choose to act immorally out of self-interest. Shallow individuals are very much more likely then devoted individuals to switch alignment. Sometimes its even part of their plans. A person might chose to walk on evil paths to satisfy his short-term goals and then try to repent so that he’ll still end up in a paradise. Others desperately try to gain the favor of evil gods, in order to gain preferential treatment once they end up in hell. Some of them started bargaining with dark powers merely for power, but eventually became corrupted or simply frightened. Those who start walking this road usually move on to become Neutral or even Devoted. Many shallow good individuals also move deeper into their alignments for very much the same reasons. (Of course, good people rarely view good powers luring people deeper into goodness as a form of “corruption”. But that’s only a matter of point of view.) Devoted individuals are rarely afraid of death. They usually do prefer to remain alive, but only out of altruism and a desire to be all that they can be and to do all that they can do in the service of their faith. It is very rare that a devoted individual acts immorally, from the point of view of his own alignment. Those who devote themselves to evil gods consider these gods to be just and fair, and feel only contempt for the unenlightened mortal world that fails to understand the true ways of the universe. Devoted individuals of different alignments often have more respect for each other then for shallow people. Devoted Good individuals sometimes feel a slight contempt for shallow good leaches and free-riders who exploit goodness for selfish reasons. Devoted Evil individuals normally feel a strong contempt for all shallow individuals, ESPECIALLY the ones of their own alignment.
#2 taltamir Oct 01, 2004 18:27:58	I started proposing new alignments once. I stopped when I reached 12 new alignment axis, which didn't even consider conviction (despite it being a very good one), and it only took 10 minutes to come up with all twelve... those twelve were the GOOD ones too, I came up with more and discarded them for being crappy. But instead I realised that alignments are just stupid. If you want to houserule alignments houserule that they don’t exist! Alignments are a leftover from the days where there were forces of the universe even greater then the gods, which all people fell into, not from choice, but because everyone HAD to have an alignment, and shifting in alignment had severe penalties as the forces of the universe withdrew their support from you. It’s rather pointless in any modern game, and a potential game breaker. Many groups break up over characters arguing moral issues, alignment is often used as a "your character wouldn’t do that because its against his alignment" argument, and many more stupid things. As a replacement for all the spells that detect alignments, you can use spells that are source dependant, all divine spells to detect an alignment would be replaced with "detect heresy" and "detect devoutness", which detect the stance your god has on that character, all on arcane ones would detect that (if there are any in your game) person evilness or goodness based on your PERSONAL consciousness. So its likely that you perceive someone as a heretic, while another person perceives him as a saint. A better thing would be to actually get glimpses of things that person has DONE (or thought) that indicate those things For example, “I can see that he murdered many people, or I can see that he likes to volunteer at the local orphanage.”
#3 callista Oct 04, 2004 23:31:42	I will admit that in modern D&D, alignments no longer exist as forces greater than even the gods. However, that doesn't mean we should abandon them altogether: As concepts, alignments are just as strong as they ever were, especially on the Good/Evil axis. Alignment is not a straitjacket; all individuals of the same alignment are not the same. It is quite possible (and I have seen it) for one LG individual to be so totally different from another LG individual that they end up fighting a duel of honor over their differences. So why, if alignment does not define a character, is it still useful? Alignment is shorthand for declaring a person's outlook. It doesn't mean everything; but it does mean *something*--for example, neither of those LG characters would ever cheat to win the duel, then mutilate the defeated opponent. It goes against what they believe in, even though they may have their differences. Alignment is NOT personality; it is allegiance. What is the character living for? What is the nature of his goals? What does he value? Alignment is a shorthand, rough-guesstimate way of answering that. Any attempt to refine the alignment system into a complete definition of a PC's or NPC's personality will inevitably become needlessly complicated. However, eliminating the alignment system altogether would, in my opinion, take away from D&D's appeal, at least to me and my group. As I see it, in the D&D world, there's Good and there's Evil; and though there may be hard choices, if you want to, you can declare your allegiance to one side or the other; and you can determine others' allegiance. That sort of solidity gives you a great deal of relief from the "real world", with fuzzy morality, multiple motivations, and shades of gray everywhere. Sure, it's not as "realistic"; but in a world where you can turn someone into a mouse, charm an enemy with a song, or even become a deity... who's looking for reality? Not me.
#4 mortalplague Oct 05, 2004 13:34:38	One thing that makes alignment important is for determining whether or not someone's harmed by a lawful, good, chaotic, or evil weapon. Without alignment, those weapon properties would be pointless.
#5 friendofthedork Oct 06, 2004 2:38:34	Those with alignments of lawful, chaotic, good or evil are considered to have "conviction" of sorts. Those that lack that are simply neutral. The only good reason to keep alignment in play is because of certain spells really. Just make it as loose as possible. A NG person doesn’t have to give alms to every beggars he meets, but should generally feel sympathy for others. If he doesn’t, he's really neutral.
#6 zombiegleemax Oct 07, 2004 6:16:29	I think perhaps, Alignment is being looked at incorrectly. More to the point, conviction doesn't need to be measured like the Final Alignment does. For myself I've had varying depths of Good and Evil, if you've played Neverwinter Nights, then you'll know where I’m coming from. A person with more "conviction" towards good would have a higher "good" value than someone with less". The person who tries to do good but fails sometimes might only get an 80 on the Good/Evil scale, but he's still of a partial good alignment (his Law/Chaos is decided in the same way). He has to do less to be considered Neutral on the Good/Evil scale over the Devout Angel who for the most part cannot be Evil (and gets 100 on the Good/Evil scale). Conviction will be challenged when a characters alignment is challenged, its not really a 3rd dimension, just increasing the scale from true, false or neither to a more defined value. Having a spell that specifically targeted conviction would be strange, but it wouldn't entirely work on a 3rd dimension. Also, note that Law has little to do with "the Law". If someone has gone with the flow, then they are more likely to be neutral, as they'd go with the flow in a different direction if it seemed correct - hence a neutral standing.
#7 gilean_dup Jan 15, 2005 0:41:43	I think that some measure of conviction is needed, if alignment system is used. There have been debates on "can evil love" and similar matters because some people consider every evil "devoted", as you would say. As to weapon enchantments, they could do 1, 2, or 3 dice of damage, depending on conviction. Or possibly 1d6, 2d6, 2d8. The strength or aura detected by detect alignment spells already does this. Paladins, evil outsiders have aura strength equal to their HD. Or they had in 3.0, anyway. That can be considered devoted. Undead and elementals had aura equal to HD/2, undead always having evil aura and possibly other, depending on alignment. Normal creatures had aura equal to HD/5.
#8 kuraito Feb 06, 2005 3:46:40	My group added another step to the alignments already. It's not official, but it's a good way to show the degree of things. After Evil is Vile which is basically so evil that evil people find you repulsive. Above good is Exalted, Good beyond description. After Lawful is Righteous so devoted to the word of law, it's sickening. After Chaos is random, enough to make insane people go "WTF?" these alignments are mostly used as a joke but we sometimes use them to describe character traits. Alignment in my eyes is yet another way to make rules for something that can't be explained. While me and my buddies where in Japan we had a very long discussion on who was "evil". I won't bore you with the details, but we eventually came to the conclusion that alignment is all about point of view. What D&D alignment does is give solid fixed rules everyone can understand on something incredibly complex. So alignment gets thumbs up from me.
#9 zombiegleemax Feb 16, 2005 11:27:44	I tend to agree with Callista: alignment is outlook and philosophy, not personality. Whether you're devoted or shallow, zealous or craven, is part of your roleplaying, not your character's ethics. But furthermore, alignment is allegiance to certain cosmic forces. Devotion and shallowness are not such forces; they do not have outer planes or outsiders devoted to them. That said, I can think of one use for this axis. If your campaign has such characters, you can use it to differentiate those true neutrals who are raging Balance-freaks from those who are simply neutral because they aren't anything else. Myself, though, I agree with the above posters that true neutral represents a certain lack of conviction; not utter apathy, you understand, but what you describe as shallow neutral good I'd call true neutral with good tendencies.
#10 clawhound Feb 16, 2005 14:51:09	I started proposing new alignments once. I stopped when I reached 12 new alignment axis, which didn't even consider conviction (despite it being a very good one), and it only took 10 minutes to come up with all twelve... those twelve were the GOOD ones too, I came up with more and discarded them for being crappy. I think alignments should be "qualities". Most things would not have an alignment. Your various "alignments" would then more closely define your traits. For instance, "good" would be "benevolent", while evil is "malevolent". This would be different from "charitable" vs. "Greedy." You could be "honorable" or "dishonorable." If you have multiple pantheons, you would have an alignment that matches you to your pantheon. So a paladin who is charitable and benevolent meets another paladin who is charitable and benevolent. However, they are from different pantheons, so they see each other as foes. Likewise, you might clash with a "malevolent, honorable" opponent just as you may meet a "generous, dishonorable" opponent. If nothing else, this would get rid of "I'm chaotic and that means acting like an idiot."
#11 jagggar Feb 16, 2005 15:07:21	The same sort of "Conviction Axis" has been floating around in my head for a while. (I was still stuck on what to call "Shallow" I was going with "ADD" in my notes.) One of my plans was to change the monk's alignment requirement from Lawful to what you've termed Devoted. Did you have any thoughts like that? I started proposing new alignments once. I stopped when I reached 12 new alignment axis, which didn't even consider conviction (despite it being a very good one), and it only took 10 minutes to come up with all twelve... those twelve were the GOOD ones too, I came up with more and discarded them for being crappy. Out of curiosity, do you have those posted anywhere?
#12 taltamir Feb 17, 2005 15:50:19	No, I never posted those. When I got to twelve or so new axes, I just discarded it all as unrealistic and now prefer to play without any alignment at all. Lemme recall a few: Greedy/Charitable Cruel/Gentle Vindictive/Forgiving Compassionate/Uncaring Obedient/Rebellious Friendly/Cold Active/Passive Logical/Intuitive The list goes on. The thing is, it gets too bloated.
#13 zombiegleemax Mar 02, 2005 11:12:34	No, I never posted those. When I got to twelve or so new axes, I just discarded it all as unrealistic and now prefer to play without any alignment at all. Lemme recall a few: Greedy/Charitable Cruel/Gentle Vindictive/Forgiving Compassionate/Uncaring Obedient/Rebellious Friendly/Cold Active/Passive Logical/Intuitive The list goes on. The thing is, it gets too bloated. Yes, these are definitely moving away from philosophy and into personality, which should probably be governed by roleplaying rather than "alignment." Also, they're many of them linked, at least to the intuition; I'd like to see a Greedy Gentle Vindictive character.
#14 taltamir Mar 02, 2005 22:12:55	Actually those are the ones who DONT overlap as much. EX: Lliam is a greedy, vindictive, and gentle person. He must have it all, weather it is women, pets, minions, and anything shiny. He is well known to be very gentle with his acquisitions, going out of his way to seduce women, and always treating his pets with care and love. He is very vindictive, and he never forgives those who would harm his acquisitions and never forgets a grudge. One way to play him would be: When one of his many lovers, mien, had been beaten by her ex lover, his wrath was great. Yet his gentle nature prevented him from torturing the lout to death. Instead, he had geased the lout into never again harm a living being. A different way to play him would be: Lliam used to travel with a party consisting of himself, a man named Duriel, and a woman named lisa. Duriel and Lisa were lovers. Lliam only joined the party because he recognized Duriel as a man who once won over a girl he was interested in. He carefully constructed a plan that resulted in him mind controlling duriel to break up with Lisa. He then erased the memories of their relationship from Duriel's mind so that he does not suffer, and comforted Lisa. In fact, he still sees Lisa, and he makes her happier then Duriel ever did. These two are different, not much, but somewhat. There are many ways to find ways to work inside complex alignment systems, however, it takes ALOT of thought, and gets harder the more alignments there are. However, the original idea was to have all alignments start at neutral, and then if you repeatedly and overwhelmingly ACT in a certain manner, have an alignment shift. This could shift back and forth, to represent your current state.
#15 nekode Mar 06, 2005 4:00:42	Monte Cook's Book of Hallowed Might has a system for rating your dedication to your ideals (a strict, yet not malicious, monk might be Good 1, Lawful 5, while the villainous orc might be Chaotic 3, Evil 3 and the BBEG Neutral Evil 6). However, I play no alignments. You are who you are. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
#16 sobek Mar 06, 2005 20:00:00	I think the concept of Shallow/Devoted and should probably be defined when you make your character but I don't think it should be a new part to your alignment. Its really just a question of to what extreme you are willing to act upon your alignment: Two Lawful Good Characters meet but one of them is "Shallow" and the other is "Devoted" The devoted character would throw himself in front of any danger to save the whole, as would the shallow character but the shallow character would stop himself and ask if the personal price of his actions is worth what it will bring to the whole more often than the devoted character; this wouldn't stop the shallow character from throwing himself in front of the dragon so the party can escape, but he would have to consider the risk of it compared to the benefit whereas the devoted character would have no compulsions about doing it; except in certain cases of course. The same applies for Evil characters except the Devoted Evil character will be working wholly to have gains for himself; a shallow evil character would put himself first but would not be opposed to helping someone else as long as helping them would not put himself at any disadvantage, risk, danger, or hinder him in any way (obviously situations were this would happen are rare, certainly more rare than were a good character would question what he/she is doing) As I said, I don't think it is worth printing on your character sheet but it is a good thing to let everyone else know off or even just to make a note of in your mind to what degree your character will act on his alignment.
#17 szat Mar 07, 2005 9:08:11	I find that, essentially, a core concept of the Alignment Axis is glossed over. It's not a cardinal compass set up where you simply have 4 directions to choose from and go with it. Similar to what Callista said is that two characters of LG or even LE will play characters COMPLETELY different. They will morph and mold the alignment to fit their characters. The alignment system to me, is in place to give a measuring post for characters. It sets boundaries as well as expectations for a character. In some ways it's a fall back system for weak roleplayers, they can justify/know what to do based on their alignment. For a new player playing a Paladin they'll think "I can't let that innocent man die, I'm LG!!!!". At the same time, experienced roleplayers can explore the nuances of the system by discovering just how CE is CE? What does being a LE person do. No two characters are the same, and rather than the prevalent opinion that the Alignment System creates homogenized characters I think it proliferates a vast array of characters. All those characters though, are created with a simple set of rules. It's important for people to remember that there are numerous different RPG's out there, if you don't like the Alignment system which is a core concept of D&D then you can play something else. Personally I see the Alignment system as a beautifully crafted dual system that allows one set of players to develop their characters based on their roleplay but also guided by two simple letters and on the other hand it allows for power gaming hacknslashers to determine just what their character would do when not asked to hack and/or slash. But then again, just as with most discussions about alignment, everyone has their own opinion, this is just mine. However, I think that the huge amount of threads on all boards dealing with alignment are missing the point that it's meant to be a simple system, it's not trying to determine what your character WOULD or WOULDN'T do, merely the moral guidelines your character is LIKELY to follow. This is an important point to keep in mind when arguing with someone about whether or not THAT act is particularly LG or LE etc. etc. Once again though, just my opinion.
#18 zombiegleemax Mar 09, 2005 1:37:21	Yes, these are definitely moving away from philosophy and into personality, which should probably be governed by roleplaying rather than "alignment." Also, they're many of them linked, at least to the intuition; I'd like to see a Greedy Gentle Vindictive character. GGV: Asks for everything, passive-aggressive towards those who refuse. Little concern for others but will not refuse them if pressed. That aside, I agree that alignments should be broader than that. My group added another step to the alignments already. It's not official, but it's a good way to show the degree of things. ... After Chaos is random, enough to make insane people go "WTF?" ... Arg. This idea frustrates me to no end. Historically, the first D & D alignment system used only Law and Chaos, described to be roughly equivalent to the modern LG and CE. The ethical (L/C) alignment axis has long been defined from a strictly Lawful viewpoint. From the soupward end of the alignment axis, "chaos" represents the free individual opposed to the oppressive hive mind. Prevalent use of the words "Law" and "Chaos" to define the Mechanus / Limbo divide reasonable from a RP perspective, as each Chaotic individual comes to his own conclusions on what names to use. A good counter example to chaos = crazy is strict Libertarianism, which is derived logically from natural rights principles, yet is very individualistic and opposes any form of government as immoral. Old-fashioned heroes, such as Hector of Troy or the Knights of the Round, were (or are believed to have been) LG, a reflection of the strong pro-law bias of the pre-enlightement west. More modern (and historical) heroes are CG, or at least CN, such as Jefferson (though not all the founders, I peg Hamilton as LN) or Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarity.
#19 gilean_dup Mar 11, 2005 11:50:57	How about this one: some characters just feel some way and do it. Others actively promote certain causes. PHB paladins, for example, would be LG or lG, while most barbarians and bards would be c, and most monks l. BIG letter means that someone is GOOD (or EVIL, CHAOTIC, LAWFUL). Examples are outsiders with alignment subtypes, and characters very devoted to their alignment(s). I, for example, are Lg or Ln, hard to say. And to the balance thingy: Most characters promoting balance aren't true neutral. At least not for long. It goes more like this: When evil ravages the land, order of balance recruits and attracts good characters. In times of great peace and goodness, more evil people are prominent. Same with law and chaos.
#20 cryosilver Mar 13, 2005 20:50:46	I like the idea of convictions further defining alignment. I'm not really sure what effects this variant might have in-game, except maybe modifying the amount of damage taken from alignment based spells and effects and stuff, but it's a neat idea.
#21 kiatic Mar 19, 2005 9:56:26	No, I never posted those. When I got to twelve or so new axes, I just discarded it all as unrealistic and now prefer to play without any alignment at all. Lemme recall a few: Greedy/Charitable Cruel/Gentle Vindictive/Forgiving Compassionate/Uncaring Obedient/Rebellious Friendly/Cold Active/Passive Logical/Intuitive The list goes on. The thing is, it gets too bloated. The pendragon game has a list of virtues similar to the above, these are used as a role-playing aid given the character's past history.
#22 quenditar Mar 30, 2005 19:26:48	My friend's ex-fiancé had a simple method of expressing conviction within existing alignment descriptors. He used a lower-case letter to represent a "passive", weak dedication to an alignment, and an upper-case letter to indicate "active" dedication to an alignment. So druids seeking to uphold the Balance would be NN, while wizards who don't really care about anything beyond their studies would be nn. The theory is different from Gilean's system, but they would work out similarly in practice.
#23 the_one_true_shea_dup Apr 04, 2005 9:56:45	I have seen gaming groups break up over alignment arguments. After one particularly hostile debate (regarding some "good" actions taken by a LE character) I came to a certain and unwavering conviction regarding what alignment means in the games that I run. Alignment is an after the act point of view. Alignment should not tell you what your character is going to do, that's what the player is there for, it should tell you how your character thinks about what he is doing. CE characters really don't care, they get what they want and move on LG characters really do care and have beliefs that define their actions In a given situation the CE and LG can take the same actions, but they will look at those actions differently. A CE might have an excuse, whereas a LG could have a reason. Excuse, reason, explanation these are just terms that are connoted differently but I think you see what I'm saying.
#24 zombiegleemax Apr 14, 2005 21:06:27	I see alignment as basically how the universe views your actions. Good, Evil Law and Chaos are not abstract, they are real and present. Because of this, it is sometimes necessary to come to a decision about what a character is, in terms of the cosmic forces of the gameworld. Thus it's really very little to do with personality. You're good if you do good actions, evil if you do evil actions. What you think, how you feel, are all interesting, but not strictly relevant. If you feel you are blessed by holiness and as such hang around in alleyways waiting to kill passersby, then you are likely to be evil, irrespective of your motivation. The Shadowbane Inquistor (Complete Adventurer) is an excellent example of this kind of mechanic in action. The system is simple, and it works. The reason it is so often resisted is that it conflicts rather strongly with modern morality, which tend to view the state of mind as vital, and goodness as being about motivation as much as anything. The focus is on personal judgment of the individual. But in AD&D the focus is not on personal judgment of the individual. Its on his deeds. This is for the purely practical reason that the DM gets to see all the deeds, but not all the motivation. The judgment needs to be done on material available during the game. And the end result is ultimately satisfactory. Your character is judged on their deeds, and get's set to a place that reflects those deeds, where they can indulge them to their heart's content. Evil people are sent to places of evil, good people to places of good, and so on. Even in the depths of the 9 hells, they probably don't care why you are evil. You're there because what you do fits what they do. The ultimate problem with the alignment system is that it doesn't have much to do with morality, moral judgment, or moral dilemmas. It's not, in fact, a morality system at all. It's a system for determining which side you are on, because that is all that is necessary. It's entirely possible to have moral systems, moral judgments and moral dilemmas in AD&D. Just don't try to use the alignment system to do it. Actually, I wouldn't use any system to do it. As with most interpersonal roleplaying, it doesn't really need a system, nor would it benefit from one.
#25 Jerivar Apr 25, 2005 4:15:05	One idea I came up with for an RPG system I once came up with for a friend, was the personality table: 10 different aspects of personality, rated 1 to 5 each, which covered aspects such as anger, self-control, randomness, self-confidence, helpfulness, devotion, etc. You ticked the boxes that your character stood on in regards to how true to those aspects they were (generally, the higher you rated, the more of a hero you were considered). I used it for a bit, but I don't really include it anymore in games, although my players seemed to like it. It's an alternative option that I used for my own games, but it made things a little clearer and gave the more wishy-washy, 'don't know how to roleplay' characters ideas for how to, well, roleplay.
#26 SirGog May 05, 2005 7:17:28	IMHO, the conviction axis is just what the alignment system needs to be completed. It really clarifies the motivations of characters. Example motives and character roles of characters using this new alignment system: Lawful Evil Shallow - Mercenary - 'The warlord's army is giving me a chance to get rich and get ahead in life. So what if I have to commit the occasional action that's against my conscience - I mightn't like it, but the money's worth it.' Chaotic Good Devoted - Revolutionary - 'It's not just the king that's to blame for our poverty. Look at all the nobles and their knights, feasting as us common folk starve. To arms! Let us take their ill-gotten wealth and put it to use helping the needy!' Neutral Good Shallow - Helper - 'I'll always do my best for those in need. It makes me feel complete and makes it more likely that if fortune disfavours me, I'll find the help I'll need.' Neutral Evil Neutral - Malicebearer - 'I've never understood why anyone would help a stranger in need. What can it do for you? Much better to hear their screams than their gratitude. After all, it's much easier to stop the screaming when you tire of it. Lawful Evil Devoted - Manipulator - 'If it is weak, either kill it or ignore it. Anything else honours it.' Lawful Good Devoted - Crusader - 'Defend the righteous, punish the wicked.'
#27 zombiegleemax Jul 11, 2005 16:57:24	I beg to disagree on this topic Conviction is a good idea, but the implementation seems to create more problem than it solves. An easy example Lawful Evil Shallow - Mercenary Lawful shallow evil shallow or Lawful devoted evil shallow or Lawful shallow evil devoted? Even if the last two are considered neutral, that won’t fix the problem My advice is a degree for both ethos and moral. We can still discuss on the number of degree. Let’s say five for a start Lawful (2) Evil (2) - this is your mercenary Lawful (4) Evil (2) - this is your a convinced law-enforcer who could consider doing some not so nice thing for the sake of law. I am the law!, Judge Dredd Lawful (2) Evil (4) - this guy mostly like Evil for its own sake. He is convinced that union makes strength but this is only secondary to spreading evil. Your archetypal LE Lawful (2) Evil (5) - this guy is a proactive evildoer. As every 5 level, he is proactive, going to great length, including life-threatening ones, to follow his alignment. The archetypal paladin is Good (5) but some more interesting paladin (we saw some examples on these forum) would be Good (4), even 3 (lower limit - below, they are not committed enough) This also counts for Neutral! How often did we see that either Neutral don’t care or else are committed to true neutrality? "Don’t care" people (seldom) or animals (much more common) have a neutral of 1 (animals), maybe 2 (tamed animals, most neutral sentients) while "keeper of the balance" (some sees druids like that) would have neutral (4). Guardinals would have neutral (5): these persons may voluntarily wreak havoc in an idyllic place. Here is an example with anti-war 1 Passive ("yes, war is bad") 2 Barely interested ("we should not let the government do that) 3 Medium (member of an anti-war association. Pay the annual fee, sometimes go to meeting and assist for manifestations) 4 Proactive (leads such an association, your usual "body shield" in the Gaza strip) 5 Fanatical (to (or beyond?) the fringe of terrorism. Ready to die for the cause. Keep it for true fanatics, paragons, some outer planes creatures… Yep, both an Hashishim and a Paladin are 5. An wild elf tribe ruler would be C(3)G(3) An wild elf tribe member would be C(4)G(3) An royal elf from Evermeet would be C(1)G(4), if he is ever chaotic A slaad could be C(5)N(1) A lupinal could be N(5)N(5) A modron is of course L(5), maybe 4 for an adventuring modron (a.k.a. Rogue Modron) Granted, it makes the system a bit more complex but nothing a player (with her DM and maybe some inspirational examples) could not handle. Finally, maybe the most interesting is that you don’t have to introduce a new element. You just expand the former one.