D&D, ultimately, is a role playing game. The Holy Avenger recorded on a character sheet means nothing compared to what has been done with it. This aspect of the game is exactly what makes D&D so compelling, and also what makes deciding a characters personality such a vital part of the character creation process.
Everyone understands the importance of having a personality in a role-playing game. The problem is that designing a personality is a daunting task. To come up with a multi-dimensional character takes a number of years for actual people. Creating one out of thin air at the start of a new campaign is the type of thing that gets glossed over more often than not for the choosing of feats. This table is to help with the basics of character design so that the most crucial step in character development does not get passed over so hastily. It is a starting point for the basics of your character’s character.
To those players who have read basic philosophical texts, the alignment table above may look oddly familiar. That is because the center column in the above table lists the four Cardinal virtues which, as C.S. Lewis explains, it was believed “all civilized people recognize.” The idea for the other two columns comes from the ethics of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that for every virtue there were two vices. One vice, in this case the leftmost column, would be a vice of omission and the other, here the rightmost, a vice of excess. As an example, someone who is brave is neither cowardly nor brash. He called this idea “The Golden Mean.”
Now that the history lesson is out of the way, you'll need is a scrap of paper. I'm serious. Grab it and draw a 4 x 5 grid.
Write in:
As the title suggests, this is a bit of an character exercise intended for use as a means of having personality determine alignment, and not the other way around.
And this is where you have already gone wrong.
Alignment does not, and never has determined personality. It has always been the other way around. Alignment is a thermometer, not a straightjacket.
Like a thermometer, it changes as the character's outlook changes. You aren't fair and generous because you are Good, you are Good because you are fair and generous. If you ever let your alignment determine what you do, instead of the other way around (aka, you use them as straightjackets), then you've already messed things up.
A thermometer says it is hot because the temperature outside has changed. However, if you push the little needle over to Very Hot when it’s actually freezing cold outside, it’s not going to make things warm up. Just like pushing it back down won't cool things down. Alignment acts the same way. Alignment changes because the character changed, not the other way around.
But the problem that you cite (as you say: "It seemed to me that it caused there to only be about nine different kinds of personality.") isn't really solved by this. You just increased the number of boxes that someone can put their character's personality into (if that's the way they play), and not by a whole lot, at that.
If someone wants to "play their alignment" (oh, I do so hate that phrase, especially when directed at PCs by DMs as an admonishment) and not think beyond that, they can do so just as well with this system as the PHB's. If someone wants to play a character and let the alignment fall where it may (or just not care about alignment at all), they can do that just as well either way, too.
This is just a change. It's not really for the better and it's not really for the worse (although I do disagree, vehemently at times, with the idea that the "right" or "best" answer always lies in the middle, which this alignment system is based on, although that would be more of a personal qualm). In the end, it doesn't really accomplish anything, and it takes a lot of text to do it with.
Sorry.
Alignment does not, and never has determined personality. It has always been the other way around. Alignment is a thermometer, not a straightjacket.
However, I'd like to point out pg. 104 of the PHB, where it states:
Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way.
Now, I don't quote that as a "haha", or even as a stand-alone definitive counter. However, I will point to it as a clear indicator of my take on alignment, which is that it is entirely circular.
(Please note that for brevity's sake, I'm simplifying alignment a bit to make a point.)
The most basic way of illustrating this is:
I'm good, so I perform good acts, which makes me good, so I perform good acts.
This is the thing most often overlooked in alignment debates. People point to acts that aren't within the character's alignment and claim roleplaying, and then denounce alignment as a straight jacket. This is ridiculous, and an excuse for not being able to properly play an alignment/character combination.
As a good character, you shouldn't even have to think about whether you'll perform a good act. You're good. Not performing the act doesn't even occur to you, unless the opposite is forced upon you. (the oft used and usually misused "moral dilemma" situation).
When a "good" person sees a child about to be crushed by an oncoming wagon, not saving the child wouldn't even cross the person's mind. And it certainly wouldn't be a case of "well, my character is good but I don't want to save the child because I might get hit by the wagon". A good person would do whatever they could to save the child, because they're good.
What I'm trying to explain is that if you're actually playing the character from the character's point of view, and the character is a particular alignment, then unless something major happens to alter that character's perspective, that character is very unlikely to perform acts outside the purview of that given alignment.
Not because "alignment is a straight jacket", but because that's how the person thinks. It's an integral part of them, of how they view everything in the world.
As to alignment as a thermometer, all I can say is "perhaps when necessary". If a character begins routinely acting in a manner consistent with a different alignment, then yes, perhaps a change is in order. However, I hold to the notion that if an alignment is chosen, it is chosen to be played. Therefore, if an alignment needs changing, it will either be due to improperly playing an alignment, or major in-game circumstances.
Three guesses as to which I see more often, and the first two don't count.
) but as an attempt at unpacking it is quite useful.Ethics equates to much of classical Law vs Chaos
Ambitions equates well with classical Good vs Evil
Whilst considerations and tribulations combine well to add definition to wisdom stat.
Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you are forced to do it. You pick your alignment based on the character and how you expect them to act. It is assumed that you actually pick the alignment you plan on playing. It doesn't force you to follow the alignment, it just means exactly what it says. If you start the game Lawful Good, you are expected actually PLAY a Lawful Good character, and not come out of the gate Chaotic Evil.
Don't remember the page number, or if it was in a web feature, but there's also the bit about if you end up playing the character different from the alignment you stated, to just change it over to what you are playing and just assume you made a mistake on the character sheet.
Just because alignment usually doesn't change, and that that is the assumption things are generally based on, doesn't mean that it can't happen, or that you are forced to play a certain way based on which alignment you chose.
This is not a replacement system. I like the classic alignment system. This is, however, an attempt to give players a basic sketch of their character's behaviors, attitudes, and general personality before they ever start playing. This, then, would help to determine which of the nine alignments best suited the character the player is creating.
For example, assume that I wanted to create a fighter. My party (a.k.a. the other players) and I all have a general feeling that we, at least, don't want to be evil.
I could choose one of the six remaining alignments based on the alignment descriptions in the PHB, and that would be fine. However, if I use this Pre-Alignment system, I will end up with a more complete idea of what kind of person my fighter is and which of the six remaining alignments suits him best.
I could decide that this fighter believes in Justice, as defined above, but only in terms of the State. He might be an atheist, which would put him in a more Moralistic way in terms of religion.
His Ambitions are where we really start to get a picture of him, though. We'll pick just three of a possibly infinite list of Ambitions. He adventures, perhaps, because he (as an atheist) seeks to leave a mark upon history that can't be erased. We'll call this ambition "(Fame)". He may also wish to put an end to poverty. We'll call that "(Socialism)". For kicks, he also wants to bring an end to slavery, which we'll call "(Emancipation)".
Now, as far as Considerations go, we'll say that:
(Fame) = Prudence...because he believes he only has one shot at this.
(Socialism) = Timidity...which translates to it being low on his priority list.
(Emancipation) = Reckless...because, for whatever reason, he has a visceral emotional response to slavery.
And for Tribulations it will be:
(Fame) = Stubbornness...because this ties directly in to his ethics of religion.
(Socialism) = Fortitude...because he believes in it, and won't stop believing in it, but is a realist and can recognize a lost cause.
(Emancipation) = As a twist, we'll say Acquiescence....because as much as he hates slavery, he doesn't want to die most of all.
So, what we've got, after a very quick run through the system, is a fighter who believes that the gods are a sham, and that the law of man is necessary, but fallible. He wants to leave a mark on history because he sees this as the purpose of life and would like to do so by either eliminating poverty, slavery, or both. If some other option arises, though, he would probably consider it. He fears dying before his fame is achieved, but still is willing to throw himself into certain dangerous situations. If things start turning south, though, he starts turning tail.
Now this was to show you how the system is intended to work. After running through this, you would then decide what the best alignment was for him to be. This character might be neutral good, or chaotic good, or perhaps something else. You decide
This character now has an overarching set of ethics that his future decisions can be based on. He has some flaws built in that will cause interesting role-playing scenarios.
I only ever intended this as a way to get to know your character in the relatively short amount of time between rolling stats and rolling attacks. I hope that at least some find it useful.
Peach.