Odd question. I remember back in the day there being an alignment scale, which rated the "goodness" of an alignment. It went something like this:
< -- LG NG CG LN N CN LE NE CE -- >
Was this something from 2e, something my old DM made up...? It's been a while.
A scale like the above can't really apply. The reason why Law/Chaos has it's own axis is because it's very debatable as to whether or not one is "more good" than the other. Some people might argue that chaos is worse/better, though others might argue that law is worse/better.
|
Way back in the day you had a very large graph that you could use to chart where your players alignments were floating at. Essentially lawful and chaotic were on part of it, and then good and evil were on another. Instead of it being a scale like what you listed it was more like plotted points on a graph.
So you'd have your two axis of alignment. Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil with a healthy margin in the middle for neutrality.
|
A scale like the above can't really apply. The reason why Law/Chaos has it's own axis is because it's very debatable as to whether or not one is "more good" than the other. Some people might argue that chaos is worse/better, though others might argue that law is worse/better.
This and what Yoda said. I know LG has been pushed as the "Most good Good" by some but I never bought into it any more than the arguments that CG > LG. For the 9 alignments, you really need two scales. You really can't lay 'em out in one line.
NG would be more good than LG or CG because NG people aren't limiting themselves to just good-that-is-lawful or good-that-is-chaotic. Likewise, NE is more evil than CE or LE because it embraces ALL evil.
Consider a line, length 1 foot. Using one end as an axle, draw a circle with that line. If the Y axis represents good vs. evil and the X axis represents law vs. chaos, the "corners" are LG, CG, CE, and LE. The cardinal directions are NG, CN, NE, and LN.
So of the alignments represented by this graph, which extends the most in the Good direction (+Y) ? Answer: NG
Which extends the most in the Law direction (-X) ? Answer: LN.
And so on.
By limiting itself to only lawful kinds of good, lawful good is less good than neutral good.
NG would be more good than LG or CG because NG people aren't limiting themselves to just good-that-is-lawful or good-that-is-chaotic. Likewise, NE is more evil than CE or LE because it embraces ALL evil.
Consider a line, length 1 foot. Using one end as an axle, draw a circle with that line. If the Y axis represents good vs. evil and the X axis represents law vs. chaos, the "corners" are LG, CG, CE, and LE. The cardinal directions are NG, CN, NE, and LN.
So of the alignments represented by this graph, which extends the most in the Good direction (+Y) ? Answer: NG
Which extends the most in the Law direction (-X) ? Answer: LN.
And so on.
By limiting itself to only lawful kinds of good, lawful good is less good than neutral good.
But if all 8 alignments radiate from the center and terminate at your perimeter, then they are all equal length; none are more anything than any other.
Or are we talking rays that extend indefinitely?
Yes, I get your point. And I've always agreed that if we label a general "good" alignment then it must fall between LG and CG - it cannot fit anywhere else in the alignment wheel. And that directin is the home of NG.
But I don't think of any of the three of them as "more good" than the others. In fact, most people aligned with LG or CG would look down on NG as being too self-centered to really stand up for what is right.
Ask anyone who is LG and they will tell you that CG lacks the order and discipline to uphold all that is good and NG is too worried about itself to step up and do the right thing for the sake of good.
Ask anyone who is CG and they will tell you that LG is too rigteous and NG is too self-centered to do all the things that really need to be done for the sake of good.
Of course, ask anyone who is NG and they will say pretty much what you said... I guess we've pegged your alignment...
Shameless self-promotion of my long standing use of a "point scale" for alignments, ranging 1-5, with 1 being the default value for "often", 2 for "usually", and 3 for "always". 0 or no entry for anything with a neutral component. Add to this that mortal creatures rarely ever exceed 3, and that 4 and 5 of any alignment could be considered by real world terms to be psychopathic. Outsiders usually start at 3, and progress further based on their interaction or lack therof with mortals/differing alignment creatures.
Red Dragon C3E3
Pit Fiend L4E4
Average Human N
Average Human Paladin L2G2
Goblin NE2
Shameless self-promotion of my long standing use of a "point scale" for alignments, ranging 1-5, with 1 being the default value for "often", 2 for "usually", and 3 for "always". 0 or no entry for anything with a neutral component. Add to this that mortal creatures rarely ever exceed 3, and that 4 and 5 of any alignment could be considered by real world terms to be psychopathic. Outsiders usually start at 3, and progress further based on their interaction or lack therof with mortals/differing alignment creatures.
Red Dragon C3E3
Pit Fiend L4E4
Average Human N
Average Human Paladin L2G2
Goblin NE2
What you've done there, mathematically, is taken a two-dimensional alignment graph and turned it into a three-dimensional graph.
Interesting idea.
Shameless self-promotion of my long standing use of a "point scale" for alignments, ranging 1-5, with 1 being the default value for "often", 2 for "usually", and 3 for "always". 0 or no entry for anything with a neutral component. Add to this that mortal creatures rarely ever exceed 3, and that 4 and 5 of any alignment could be considered by real world terms to be psychopathic. Outsiders usually start at 3, and progress further based on their interaction or lack therof with mortals/differing alignment creatures.
Red Dragon C3E3
Pit Fiend L4E4
Average Human N
Average Human Paladin L2G2
Goblin NE2
What you've done there, mathematically, is taken a two-dimensional alignment graph and turned it into a three-dimensional graph.
Interesting idea.
it's still just 2 dimensional, the alignments are just quantified now. like coordinates. someone pegged chaotic evil would be C5E5.
A more relevant question is: Are people Neutral anything or anything Neutral? You could make a pretty good case for people being LG, CG, LE or CE. Our brains do not work along principles of balance. For each neutral alignment, you could just say "Do you work MORE toward Law or Chaos" or "have you actually made a decision for Good, or are you Evil?"
This would mean that those pesky LNs would commonly be Lawful Evil, and those Ns who "do not care" end up as CE.
Certainly, this would not be a popular view, so go ahead. I got a flame suit on.
Oh, I just remember it being brought into play from somewhere, but I swear it was an earlier edition. I didn't mean to bring in the debate, but well, there we go. :)
it's still just 2 dimensional, the alignments are just quantified now. like coordinates. someone pegged chaotic evil would be C5E5.
Specifically, C5E5 would be the worst you could possibly imagine and then some. The "normal mortal limit" and "normal CE outsider start point" being C3E3, would make C5E5 almost inconceivable by normal minds. Technically, you could be C1E1 and still be chaotic evil (although to shades of grey it up a bit, I run it that alignment based effects only start working at 2, making 1 more like "neutral with so-and-so tendencies").
Points 4 and 5 on the scale are hard to describe, because they represent degrees of alignment so extreme they begin to loose the reference point of the opposite side. A L3G3 angel is still comprehensible, it acknowledges the existance of chaos and evil, and can even wrap its mind around the two. "Know thy enemy" and all. L4G4 starts distancing itself from evil, and by proxy, starts becoming inhuman relative to our standards. It could be a rigid non-violence policy, enforcement of a complex series of laws to prevent any sort of disturbance, or even just an inability to perceive evil as evil, but rather just as an absence of good. Effectively turning black and white vision into "not there at all and white vision".
Threadjack over.
|
it's still just 2 dimensional, the alignments are just quantified now. like coordinates. someone pegged chaotic evil would be C5E5.
Sometimes I use a scale with more positions: Exalted-Good-Benign-Neutral-Malign-Evil-Vile and Axiomatic-Lawful-Ordered-Neutral-Disordered-Chaotic-Anarchic. The extreme values are reserved for outsiders and special high level mortals.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I believe I've mentioned it before, but this thread is on topic so...
In the STAP game I played in, the GM came up with a great new mechanic for measuring PC alignment. You still chose one of the 9 alignments for your PC which was your baseline. For each level you possess, you gain an alignment point slot (think of Link's hearts in Zelda). A paladin 6 (LG) could have up to 6 good points, 6 law points, and up to 3 chaos or evil points. A CN barbarian 10 could have 10 chaos points, and up to 5 law, good or evil points.
Points were earned by taking a major, consciously chosen action which promoted the given alignment. Putting yourself in harm's way to save orphans would get you a good point, while returning them to the orphanage for proper supervision instead of letting them run free upon their salvation would gain you a law point. At the end of each session, the GM would award points based on individual and party actions and each player could propose additional points for themselves or other players to be awarded at the GM's discression.
At any time, you could cash in a point to gain a bonus on an action which would further that alignment. So I could use an evil point to do bonus damage against an innocent person I was torturing, or a chaos point to confirm a crit against a city watchman who was after me for robbing from the rich. A point could let you reroll a d20, add 1d6 to any damage roll, or be used to cancel out an opposing point. If your points in one axis reached maximum, or you did a hugely good/lawful/chaotic/evil act, you could get a cosmic point, which would move your alignment in that direction 1 step (if possible) or could be cashed in for major, world changing story (non-mechanical) effects at the GM's discression.
It really made everyone more conscious of every decision they made and when they were deviating from what their character's alignment would do. I loved seeing an in-game, mechanical effect for the alignment system.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I generally think of extreme Lawfulness as verging on Evil, and have had a couple really long running, enjoyable campaigns that explored that concept.
Paladins falling as their views on good and evil become too rigid, everything reduced to black and white absolutes, lawful neutral leaders obsessed with a goal, and willing to commit terrible acts in pursuit of it, hanging judges, etc.
(To be fair, extreme Chaos often verges on Evil as well.)
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I generally think of extreme Lawfulness as verging on Evil, and have had a couple really long running, enjoyable campaigns that explored that concept.
Paladins falling as their views on good and evil become too rigid, everything reduced to black and white absolutes, lawful neutral leaders obsessed with a goal, and willing to commit terrible acts in pursuit of it, hanging judges, etc.
(To be fair, extreme Chaos often verges on Evil as well.)
I think that more so quantifies that fanaticism is dangerous.
All extreme lignments tend toward evil in my view, like some guy who said a planetar angel would happily kill nuetral and evil mortals no matter age power or ability to defend themselves.
So extreme good can be evil too. Fanatacism itself is evil in many ways. Its certainly the most dangerous of human behaviourial aspects as far as I'm concerned. For CG fanatacism even, for everything.
|
|
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I generally think of extreme Lawfulness as verging on Evil, and have had a couple really long running, enjoyable campaigns that explored that concept.
Paladins falling as their views on good and evil become too rigid, everything reduced to black and white absolutes, lawful neutral leaders obsessed with a goal, and willing to commit terrible acts in pursuit of it, hanging judges, etc.
(To be fair, extreme Chaos often verges on Evil as well.)
I think that more so quantifies that fanaticism is dangerous.
All extreme lignments tend toward evil in my view, like some guy who said a planetar angel would happily kill nuetral and evil mortals no matter age power or ability to defend themselves.
So extreme good can be evil too. Fanatacism itself is evil in many ways. Its certainly the most dangerous of human behaviourial aspects as far as I'm concerned. For CG fanatacism even, for everything.
Dragonlance really touched on this with the Kingpriest of Istar. He became so obsessed with ridding the world of its evils that he demanded the gods serve him in this quest. Many were killed in this and the gods were lost to the people of the world for centuries because of it.
The original 2ed Dragon Lance rulebook had a some form of sliding scale for alignment. I don't have my book handy, I but I remember it tracked from Good to Neutral to Evil.
The original 2ed Dragon Lance rulebook had a some form of sliding scale for alignment. I don't have my book handy, I but I remember it tracked from Good to Neutral to Evil.
That might be it! Perhaps I wasn't hallucinating, after all...
I recall the chart from the DL books as well, I think the original DragonLance Adventures hardcover rulebook had it as well. It is packed in storage so I can not say for sure.
I recall the chart from the DL books as well, I think the original DragonLance Adventures hardcover rulebook had it as well. It is packed in storage so I can not say for sure.
Thank you! :)
I recall the chart from the DL books as well, I think the original DragonLance Adventures hardcover rulebook had it as well. It is packed in storage so I can not say for sure.Thank you! :)
From an old 1e copy, there's another graph that shows the following adjectives:
LG - Saintly
NG
CG - Beatific
LN
N
CN
LE - Diabolic
NE
CE - Demoniac
...I feel a little sorry for the neutrals, here. :)
Shameless self-promotion of my long standing use of a "point scale" for alignments, ranging 1-5, with 1 being the default value for "often", 2 for "usually", and 3 for "always". 0 or no entry for anything with a neutral component. Add to this that mortal creatures rarely ever exceed 3, and that 4 and 5 of any alignment could be considered by real world terms to be psychopathic. Outsiders usually start at 3, and progress further based on their interaction or lack therof with mortals/differing alignment creatures.
Red Dragon C3E3
Pit Fiend L4E4
Average Human N
Average Human Paladin L2G2
Goblin NE2
Oh. In that Scale, I'm C(11i^e) N.
But if all 8 alignments radiate from the center and terminate at your perimeter, then they are all equal length; none are more anything than any other.
Not true.
Picture yourself at 0 latitude, 0 longitude (I guess you'd be on a boat off the coast of Africa). Draw a circle on a globe centered on that spot with a radius of 1000 miles. Location 1 is 1000 miles due north of you, location 2 is due northeast, 3 is due east, 4 is due southeast, 5 is due south, 6 is due southwest, 7 is due west, and 8 is due northwest. Have a friend stand at each of those locations.Each of those 8 friends is equidistant from you (1000 miles).
But Friend1 is more North than Friend2 or Friend8; Friend1 is 1000 miles north of you, while Friend2 and Friend8 are only 707* miles north of you (and 707 miles east or west of you).
Because 1000 miles North is greater than 707 miles North, Friend1 is more North than you.
Putting this on my "alignment globe," Friend1 is NG, Friend2 is CG, and Friend8 is LG. Friend1 is 1000 "miles" more Good than True Neutral, and Friend2 and Friend8 are only 707 "miles" more Good than True Neutral. Thus, Friend1 (NG) is more Good than either Friend2 (CG) or Friend8 (LG).
I can graph it if you like, I'm nerdy that way. :)
* For a circle of radius 1, the coordinates of the "northeast" end of the circle is
SQRT(2)/2, SQRT(2)/2
where SQRT(2) is the square root of 2, which is 1.414
thus SQRT(2)/2 is .707
As the radius in my example is 1000 miles, that means the "northeast" point on the circle is 1000*.707 = 707.
Altough, the arguement to that is why use a circle at all? Why assume a globelike-distribution?
The alignment axis is a grid, of nine slots, so using the grid no good is greater or less than another good in a general sense, which is fine if you take each slot on the grid to be a large swath of behaviour and morality.
|
But if all 8 alignments radiate from the center and terminate at your perimeter, then they are all equal length; none are more anything than any other.Not true.
Picture yourself at 0 latitude, 0 longitude (I guess you'd be on a boat off the coast of Africa). Draw a circle on a globe centered on that spot with a radius of 1000 miles. Location 1 is 1000 miles due north of you, location 2 is due northeast, 3 is due east, 4 is due southeast, 5 is due south, 6 is due southwest, 7 is due west, and 8 is due northwest. Have a friend stand at each of those locations.Each of those 8 friends is equidistant from you (1000 miles).
But Friend1 is more North than Friend2 or Friend8; Friend1 is 1000 miles north of you, while Friend2 and Friend8 are only 707* miles north of you (and 707 miles east or west of you).Because 1000 miles North is greater than 707 miles North, Friend1 is more North than you.
Putting this on my "alignment globe," Friend1 is NG, Friend2 is CG, and Friend8 is LG. Friend1 is 1000 "miles" more Good than True Neutral, and Friend2 and Friend8 are only 707 "miles" more Good than True Neutral. Thus, Friend1 (NG) is more Good than either Friend2 (CG) or Friend8 (LG).
I can graph it if you like, I'm nerdy that way. :)
* For a circle of radius 1, the coordinates of the "northeast" end of the circle is
SQRT(2)/2, SQRT(2)/2
where SQRT(2) is the square root of 2, which is 1.414
thus SQRT(2)/2 is .707
As the radius in my example is 1000 miles, that means the "northeast" point on the circle is 1000*.707 = 707.
And what happens if you rotate it 90 degrees? :)
Back to the OP, I remember that scale as well. I thought I remembered it in a Ravenloft product. I'll look around tomorrow.
And what happens if you rotate it 90 degrees? :)
Then Good = West? :p
NG would be more good than LG or CG because...[great point]
I don't know how many times I have made this argument, which almost invariably fell on deaf ears. From now on, I will open with, "Sean K Reynolds says..."
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
NG would be more good than LG or CG because...[great point]I don't know how many times I have made this argument, which almost invariably fell on deaf ears. From now on, I will open with, "Sean K Reynolds says..."
Unless you're talking to Sean K Reynolds, who's going to be persuaded that you're correct by starting the sentence that way?
NG would be more good than LG or CG because...[great point]I don't know how many times I have made this argument, which almost invariably fell on deaf ears. From now on, I will open with, "Sean K Reynolds says..."
If the axes influence each other, then it's definetly like this. Neither chaos nor order will help you be more good or evil. Either all goods are equally good because they're all good, or neutral good is "gooder" than good because there's no distraction from order or chaos (unless you are actively neutral, championing the balance)
NG would be more good than LG or CG because...[great point]I don't know how many times I have made this argument, which almost invariably fell on deaf ears. From now on, I will open with, "Sean K Reynolds says..."
^5 Mairkurion - sounds like a plan to me :) [I actually haven't thought of it this way before.]
Thanks Sean!
The only problem I see with this is that all the outer points are "1000 miles" from True Neutral, but only "586 miles" from each other. That works for a 1st edition feel though.
[Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, you can't have "adjacently equi-distant" alignments (with a TN center) with anything except 7 alignments (forming a hexagon with equilateral triangles between each adjacent alignment and TN). Like This, the right one of which incidentally has "good" values for LG and CG of "577 miles".]
Oh, it will have an effect. They'll be busy wondering who SKR is instead of simply ignoring my argument. Which is still right!
ADD: Everything is 1000 miles from TN, as only plants, animals, impersonal forces, and a certain kind of insane person are TN.
Thanks Sean!
The only problem I see with this is that all the outer points are "1000 miles" from True Neutral, but only "586 miles" from each other. That works for a 1st edition feel though.
So why do I suddenly have The Proclaimers' song stuck in my head?
Cause you're Chaotic Good with a Lawful Evil girlfriend?
Hey, don't blame hill-billies for making unaligned an alignment. They didn't right that stuff.
Two axes just ain't cuttin' it, for me. I really want three:
(1) Concern for others vs. disregard (basically good/evil);
(2) Adherence to tradition vs. iconoclasty (one aspect of law/chaos);
(3) Self-discipline vs. dissipation (another aspect similar to law/chaos).
Then my Natty Bumppo-like ranger could be CIS (compassionate-iconoclastic-self disciplined), vs. the CTS paladin, vs. the NTS druid, vs. the CID bard.
ADD: Everything is 1000 miles from TN, as only plants, animals, impersonal forces, and a certain kind of insane person are living in TN.Fixed it for ya. ;)
Heh. Who wrote that poem about the pot on the hill in Tennessee? "It did not give of bird or bush/ Like nothing else in Tennessee." Who knew it was actually the zero-point of an alignment scale?
Heh. I wrote "right that stuff." Where's my editor today. Oh yeah...working on a 200 p. manuscript.
|
|
While I agree with the concept that NG is "more good" I am not really inclined to buy the graph argument. Quite simply because alignments, morality and ethics are not geometry and much more complex.
The best argument against the graph to me is that good is good and evil is evil. There is no "more good" than any other good, because they are still good.
Think back 5 years about yourself. Now think back 10 years. Now 20 years back. Were you really the same person you are now? Of course not, you are 20 years older with more experience. But which is the one that is more you? Are you more you now than you were then? Or are you just you in various times?
Good is good no matter what. Evil is evil no matter what. True neutral is just schizophrenic. At least that is what the voices tell me.
Yeah, the graph isn't really the part of the argument I was referring to. It was just fun. It was the first part of SKR's post that I really meant.
Krome-- you, Saern, and me. Crusaders against neutrality.
Alignment has always been less nuanced than personality.
You might just write up a code of conduct for every character, similar to the old Palladium alignments. One evil person might be capable of making friends to whom he acts in a loyal, kind, and relatively "good" way. Another evil person with the same outlook (promote evil within an ordered system: LE) might be incapable of forming anything but mild platonic friendships, and even his closest allies might be expendable pawns.
|
|
Another comment about the graph... :)
SKR is using this sort of graph as his reference. I'll refer this this graph then.
What this graph shows me:
If we assume that each line terminates 1000 points from the center- Neutral...
We see that everything above the center dividing line is Good, everything below is Evil. Everything Left of the Center point is Lawful everthing right is Chaotic.
We see that LG, NG, and CH all extend 1000 points into good. I find it arbitrary to designate only straight up is pure good, because we can simply rotate the scale 45 degrees and now LG is more good or CG is more good.
So we find that all forms of good are of the same value, and all forms of evil are of the same value. Likewise, all forms of chaos and all forms of lawful are also equal.
The only way to arrive at one form being more good than another is if the lines are NOT all 1000 points from neutral.
In fact the ONLY way that ALL lines are equal, is if the person asking the question is in fact true neutral. In fact a LG person might view the graph more like this, and then only LG is the most good as it is longest, chaotic good being the absolute least good.
So, IF we follow the SKR's graph, all lines being equal in length, then all good is of equal value.
Heh...heh. Unaligned ass.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We see that LG, NG, and CH all extend 1000 points into good. I find it arbitrary to designate only straight up is pure good, because we can simply rotate the scale 45 degrees and now LG is more good or CG is more good.
And when you rotate 45 degrees, suddenly LN is good too, and CN is evil and CG has dropped out of good entirely. If you choose not to agree that the farther from 0 one is along the y axis the "more good" you are, that's fine. But the rotation argument doesn't work.
on two different axes...
:S