Usually I'm of the 'alignments should be dropped' camp, but I today I had this weird/cool idea. Alignment meters. There are four meters, Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic. They rise or drop in accordance for a player's actions, by how much is determined in the end by the GM.
So for example
Good (The paragon path)
Rises
* Saving Someone
* Returning a lost object
* Donations
* Protecting someone else
* Showing Mercy
Lowers
* Ignoring someone in need
* Keeping loot rather than finding the original owner
Evil (The destructive path)
Rises
* Killing Someone
* Stealing Something
* Torturing Someone
* Enslaving Someone
Lowers
* Bounding someone rather than just killing them
* Letting someone off
Lawful
Rises
* Following orders
Lowers
* Not doing something that the law asks you to do
* Ignoring Commands
Chaotic
Rises
* Doing something against the law
* Doing something even when told not to
Lowers
* Not doing something because it's against the law
* Accommodating for the customs of others
Good and Evil should be separate because someone could do an ambiguous action (kill a person to protect another, in which case it's a little evil, but the good should outweigh the evil) and it defines the difference between a person who's hopping on both sides and the person who prefers not to be involved.
Lawful and Chaotic, I'm not so sure. But this setup allows for a Lawful Chaotic character, such as one who follows a strict code that differs from the law.
Meh, I dunno. I don't even think that I'd ever realistically use it, but I just felt like putting the idea out there.
Forgot to mention the reason I even thought of this, I think it would give a greater meaning to auras and the detect alignments (those of minor evil would glow less than those that commit great sins, regardless of level). It also would give players an idea of how close they are to falling, but makes one aware that doing nice things won't cover up the atrocities that one committed in the past.
|
While I like that you're looking to do something with the system, rather than dropping it entirely, the inclusion of a Lawful Chaotic option leads me to believe you simply don't understand the original system.
"one who follows a strict code that differs from the law" is still Lawful. If it differs from local laws, that might make them Lawful Evil (considering the local laws are LG - could also be the opposite).
Anyway, I'd revise the system to go back towards the original axes: L-to-C and G-to-E. Then you might have something worth building out. Some way for players and GM's to 'cost' out actions that are contrary to the stated alignment.
You could even consult some of the old Star Wars material for examples on how they handled this...
"one who follows a strict code that differs from the law" is still Lawful. If it differs from local laws, that might make them Lawful Evil (considering the local laws are LG - could also be the opposite).
It really is subjective. Consider a person who for whatever must bathe every day as part of their personal code. Perhaps 'baptizing themselves of the sins of the world' or something like that. If she comes to a region where there are strict regulations what to use water for (like an area cursed with a drought, so they must ration it very carefully and save it for drinking). She must either give up on her code or disobey the law, it doesn't make her good or evil. Alignment is kind of ambiguous here.
I don't believe just having a code makes one 'lawful' though. What if you have a strict code that tells you that you must seek vengeance for a fallen family member, take the hand of one who steals from you, and engage in a fight with someone who meets eyes with you? Is that lawful? If so, then what about the characters that just follow the laws of whatever region they're in? I know one of them is lawful, but which one? And is the other one Chaotic or Neutral?
But meh, it really is a rare enough case that's just avoided by good DMs. (Why would you intentionally place a player character in an area where his or her ethics are challenged? unless you're either a) playing a morally ambiguous game or b) just trying to piss the player off)
But the good and evil I think should be separate. You have your guys who are all "some evil (such as slaying the bad guys) must be done to protect the innocent and further the goals of good.", the "I must save everyone, I must not fall to the level of the bad guys by killing them" like Vash the Stampede (which in a game tends to have a hard time without GM interference)
But I really just feel that there should be a separation between the guy who's swaying between Good and Evil (someone who will do evil things to save the world) and someone who is just neutral and doesn't get involved in others' conflicts.
Most people in real life are somewhere around neutral. Many people may do a nice thing here or there, or do something illegal once in a while, but they don't usually go to great lengths to improve or worsen the situation.
Batman is Lawful Chaotic Evil Good.