Anybody in the mood to talk alignments? I know it's your favourite pointless thought experiment

Anybody in the mood to talk alignments? I know it's your favourite pointless thought experiment.

My personal feel is that the usual alignments would work if only they didn't sound so extreme and absolute. It's not a problem with the system, it's almost just a problem of wording.

So here's my solution (I'd like to test it out with my players at some point and I don't think anybody I know really minds about alignments)

Good vs Evil is instead Altruistic vs Selfish
Lawful vs Chaotic is instead Traditionalist vs Subversive

Instead of going from saint to sociopath, you go from "I go out of my way to help others" (altruistic) to "I don't really care about helping others, I try not to hurt others" (neutral) to "I could hurt others if it's useful to me, I might still feel some regret" (selfish)

And regarding the other two: I avoid the word Chaotic being read like "lolcrazy" by many, and the main concept shifts from "does this character follow or doesn't follow the rules" to "what rules does this character think should be around". The range goes from "I want to preserve traditions and follow ancient rules" (traditionalist) to "I just want rules that make sense" (neutral) to "Traditions are useless, if a rule has no point it has to be changed and it can possibly be ignored until it's changed" (subversive).
This one gets political very easily, it's hard to find words that are not loaded positively or negatively for this type of definition. Any suggestion?

The other point is to have an alignment system that can create attrition but not proper hatred in a group of characters working together. A good character and an evil character will almost kill each other on sight, instead an altruistic character and a selfish character can still work together for the same goal, even though the selfish one might end up doing some dick move halfway through if it's convenient.

Like it? Hate it? Better ideas?

You should name that pic "jewometer"

sounds good.
i like it.

I dunno though. There really has to be a limit, some sort of cutoff point.

If you are cutting peoples heads off to go bowling, it doesn't really matter how you sell it.

Thats why I like Palladiums system a lot. Sometimes things really are just black and white.

Yeah, I guess that just kind of assumes they are all good people and won't work against their own interests.

thats basically the problem. A player has no reason to work towards his characters own interest. Unless he chooses to personalize his character and adopt his persona, he isn't really a player, he is trying to be DM. The player is just a pawn that exists for his amusement.

If I let my player die because i'm being lol randumb, then I'm trying to crash the game because it amuses me to watch other people crash and burn. Internally, his character is just
another ant for him to burn with a magnifying glass.

I'm glad to hear that

But it doesn't mean you can't make an absurdly exaggerated character.
The alignment system brings players to do certain choices when making characters, and a black and white system makes for black and white characters.
"Sociopathic" evil characters, "lolrandom" chaotic characters, "I live with a polearm stuck in my ass" lawful characters.
A system of this kind works better if you want your characters to be less black and white, but if a player still wants a character like that, nothing stops them from making a subversive-selfish character that cuts people's heads off to go bowling. Even though in the same category you have somebody that mostly just robs house for a living.
Ultimately it's also about what kind of world you are playing in.

Where's the poppy seed?

Well, the "selfish" axis is very varied. I specifically wrote "might" feel some regret, for a reason. It has characters that feel regret and characters that don't. It can have some pretty bad people in it.
But yeah all in all, at least it makes it easier to have a group of good people with all sorts of alignments.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this reasoning.

Unaligned. Only animals would eat that shit.

LG, TN, and NE are the only good alignments.
You go to hell and you die!

I think if I was to put opium on my fucking bagel, why not go all the way through and just start space cooking?

>A good character and an evil character will almost kill each other on sight
This isn't a system problem, or a wording problem. As always, it's a shitty player problem.

It's also a context problem.
The evil characters can only survive around the good characters if they hide the fact that they are evil.
Get an evil character to actually act evil for a second (or get busted) and the good characters won't be very happy.
Also it's annoyingly hard to have the evil character and the good character to work for the same goal.

So under normal alignment as a DM, if you have evil characters, you always need to ensure that:
-the group goal is something that the evil characters and good characters can both be interested in
-the evil characters are hiding their nature from the good characters
-hope that the evil characters won't kill the good characters in their sleep

but what about a character that does not belive that there shuld be a code of rules? i always saw this "revolutionary-change the rules, and make it fare" kind of "chaotic" characters to be really lawful at it's core. they don't belive in the status quo's laws, but they belive in a law.

sorry about my wordy words, i'm just learning how to write

It's just a more extreme subversive. Just like the guy that cuts heads to go bowling is a more extreme selfish.
After all "I believe there shouldn't be a code of rules" basically means "I want to change the rules so that there aren't any, and that's what I think is fair".

Your words are fine.

If you don't know how to make it work, its a (You) problem

nice, you won. I like this aligments better. now, why anyone would make their playars state their charater's aligment insted of letting them develop a personality as they play and react to the situation, and others player's actions??

It also depends on the kind of story that you want to play. There's plenty of DMs that just want to play a lotr type thing with good characters smiting the evil lord or something of the sort and they simply don't allow evil. Then you end up with everybody having less alignments.

I have no problems managing evil characters, I just don't always feel like it.

I'm working on something similar, but it goes like this:
>One axis is the usual Good-Neutral-Evil, representing the character's disposition to others (->whatThe other axis is Pure-True-Corrupt, representing the character's motivation behind his actions (->whyGood characters help others
>Neutral characters ignore others
>Evil characters harm others
>Pure characters do it because of a moral code they follow (ideal driven)
>True characters do it because they see it reasonable (logic driven)
>Corrupt characters do it because they want to (desire driven)

Example: in a collapsing house, the escaping character encounters another who is hanging from a ledge. A Good character runs there and helps the guy up to escape together. A Neutral character keeps escaping, maybe shouts a "sorry". An Evil character runs there and kicks the guy in the face, making him fall into his death. For a Pure character, this course of action is what his code dictates (be it traditional honor, law-abiding behavior for the evacuation plan, or a "weak must fall" mentality). For a Neutral character, this course of action is the reasonable one (better chances for escape together, better chances for escape alone, better chances for escape if the other guy is not weighing down the level). For a Corrupt character, this course of action is the right one for selfish reasons (saved the guy to become a hero, left the guy because own survival takes priority, killed the guy because killing is good).

It's a nice tool to have a broad stroke idea about what your character's morality is about, then you can add details onto it. It also helps the GM understand how to handle the various player characters and throw interesting situations at them.

>the evil characters are hiding their nature from the good characters
Absolutely unnecessary unless someone's playing a full-retard paladin. I may not like Drax the Baby-eater, or approve of his baby-eating, but he's fucking fantastic at getting shit dead that needs to be dead. As long as he doesn't try to eat any fucking babies within ten miles of me, we're good. If he DOES, then it's on, because I'm NG and love babies.

People who despise each other working together is some of the oldest shit there is.

>tfw chaotic neutral bagel
Why does the best bagel have to be the worst alignment?

I did like these slightly more complex types of alignment systems before but I noticed that players get bored with them quite easily.
Also they often make characters feel a little mechanical "if this happens then do this".

Also I don't like the wording at places. Your Evil characters just straight up "harm others" (which sounds like "always harm others"), I think "CAN harm others" makes more sense. As well as "STRIVES to help others". Because ignoring others is always the default, and harming or helping others are options at times but will not be attempted all the time.

Also what's up with your Corrupt-Good? It sounds insane.

One thing is despising somebody, another thing is when they are fucking eating babies. Fucking hell, if you knew a person you were working with was happily kidnapping, murdering and eating infants, would you not at least call the police on them?

Even if it was absolutely necessary for my survival that that person keeps working with me (for example if this person was my boss), I think I would still take action against that.

In short, your neutral good sounds like a true neutral.

>Also I don't like the wording at places.

Yeah, I just typed it in quickly. It is not an "always" thing, obviously, but it must be applied to a clear majority of the character's actions. If the character swings around a lot with his actions, then he is probably Corrupt Neutral.

>Also what's up with your Corrupt-Good? It sounds insane.

It is just a narcissistic dude with a hero complex. He does the good thing, but not for the good reason.

This alignment chart was made for a grimbright setting, so it leans heavily towards "all people are douchebags, so take your poison".

WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT

WHAT DO YOU EVEN INTEND TO USE IT FOR

This

OH HEY PLAYER I COULD TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CHARACTER BUT I HATE TALKING SO HAVE THIS STUPID FUCKING CHART, GO BROADLY MARK THINGS INSTEAD OF TELLING ME SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER

All in all I never quite understood why allignment exicts in the first place... I can see it as a good tool for the GM to manage NPC fractions but not for players.

For general behavior/personality systems I actually quite like the idea of Nature/Demeanor from world of darkness. It is alot more freeform and gives players a better tool to depict what they want to play

I literally cannot think of a good reason to use D&D's alignment system. Every reason I've ever heard basically boils down to either:

>It's what I started with and change scares me
>I have a childishly simplistic view of morality, and genuinely believe that D&D's alignment system accurately encompasses all of human ethics

The former is boring and the latter is stupid. As soon as you move away from D&D's nonsense and actually try explaining a character's reasoning for their actions, in your own words, things become infinitely more interesting.

It makes interesting cosmic factions

Oh, wow, yes, hmm. Law and Chaos, very original, very interesting. It's not like a billion fucking settings haven't already done that idea to fucking death, no sir!

That is not a reason to NOT have it.

i view it more as a guideline in character creation. i played a mad scientist who would evolve animals to be stronger and would surround himself with those who are strong of both physical strength and influence, so i went with chaotic evil (this was a mostly evil and neutral party mind you). some of my friends said he should be lawful evil if he is a scientist, but he was too spontaneous and has a disdain for authority and magic. after all, a doctorate is just a piece of paper and magic is just cheating when used for science!

That pretty much seems as though you had the character ready without thinking about his alignment at all. I still don't see the appeal of it, especially since others try to argue for your alignment which I find super weird.

i actually most of his personality came though much after the fact. i was mostly trying to be like dr animo from ben 10, the most saturday morning cartoon mad scientist ever. when in doubt i referred to animo or his alignment for guidance. after awhile he became more of his own character.

Here let me fix that for you buddelerinolerino.

The obvious question with that is, what use is it? The original alignment system was designed to allow the inclusion of magical forces relating to morality, heaven and hell, whether various protection/ward/blessing spells affect you, and so on.

Once you've detached from good and evil and law and chaos, what is your alignment system even going to be used for? Are you going to have spells that affect altruistic people differently from selfish people? Magic weapons that burn you if you're a traditionalist? Will looking directly at an angel burn your eyes out if you're too selfish?

I guess if you were doing some sort of sci-fi setting with psychics you could do something with it, with a sort of "how easily do you connect with others/how open are you to new ideas" thing combining to determine how vulenrable/capable with psychic powers you are. Like, an altruistic subversive would have a very open mind and open heart, making them very psychically powerful but also very vulnerable to other psychics, and the reverse for traditionalist selfish. There'd be issues with it but not any more than traditional alignment.

For fantasy, though? You'd want something more mystical. If you don't like good/evil and law/chaos, you could come up with more morally neutral dualities and give people "allegiances" based on how close their personality is to those. Things like sun/moon, fire/ice, earth/sky, et cetera. But then you'd need morally neutral magics and beings to go with them, like you could associate angels with sky and demons with earth, but then you'd have to not associate them with good and evil so much.

>If you don't give away free stuff, you're not a good person
The problem with the whole altruistic/selfish spectrum is that some of the most evil institutions in reality use that so called "altruism" as their cloak and shield. If you give a fish to a man every day, he will never learn to fish and once you stop, he will starve to death.