| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The D&D alignment system doesn't really fit my GMing style well. I like grey and gray morality, moral dissonance, corruption, unclear motives, sympathetic villains, heroes who go too far, and good versus good storylines a great deal. The D&D alignment system, while not a bad system, does not handle that type of thing particularly well, so I've come up with something different.
Categories
My alignment system is split into four categories and a pseudocategory that works differently from the other categories.
This alignment system categorizes a character's motivations for taking specific actions, not the actions themselves. This is important when using this system, as most actions fall into multiple categories.
The categories are:
Order
This represents someone who believes in an orderly lifestyle or society, or perhaps both. Though many order characters seek to uphold a system of written laws, many others don't. An order character could just as easily be a Barbarian holding to sacred tribal traditions or a Monk seeking to control her body as a judge punishing those who prey on the innocent based on a book of written legal codes. An order character could also be someone who abuses law or tradition to benefit herself, and who most certainly wouldn't want to live without it, such as a corrupt politician. Tyrants are very commonly order characters.
Independence
This represents someone who believes in personal choice and freedom or who does not feel beholden to the law. Not all independent characters are opposed to law, as it is possible to see laws as necessary while believing that they should be as nonrestrictive as possible, but other independent characters are avowed anarchists. An independent character can be a ruthless bandit taking whatever she wants without regard to the law, a paladin who upholds the law but believes it needs to leave room for personal freedom, a rebel crusading against authority, and many other things.
Service
This represents someone who desires to either serve or help others. This could be a paladin who wishes to protect and assist innocents whenever they need it, a virtuous senator voting for the best interests of her people, or the military officer who loyally carries out a genocidal dictator's murderous orders. What matters is putting the interests of another (besides family and close friends) or several others above those of one's self.
Ambition
This represents someone who wishes to gain something major for herself. Examples are a warrior striving for knighthood, a tyrant who wants nothing less than the status of emperor, someone who wants to make a major fortune, and so on. An ambition character is someone who has personal goals are central to her motivations for acting. Every character has personal goals, but ambition characters are those who spend the most time chasing them.
The pseudocategory is Indifference. Indifference can mean that someone doesn't have strong leanings toward another category, or it can mean someone has more minor leanings toward a specific category than other characters. It can also mark that one is usually indifferent to things not connected to another category.
Choosing alignment
When choosing alignment, pick two categories that fit your character's goals and motivations, and then decide which one is more important. Write that one first, then a slash, then the second most important category. It should look like this:
Service/Independence
For a character who serves and protects the innocent and upholds freedom, and considers service the more important category. For a character who's two categories are equally important, write the alignment with an equal sign between the two categories, so that it looks like this:
Service=Independence
For the character above if that character considers service and independence to be of equal importance.
None of the categories conflict with each other. It is possible to combine any of them.
When using indifference, decide how your character is indifferent. If the character has no strong leanings, just write Indifference, and do not choose another category. If a character is indifferent but has slight leanings toward another category, write Indifference followed by a slash and the category. For a character who is generally indifferent to things not connected with a single category, write that category followed by a slash and Indifference.
This system and standard alignment
This system makes no attempt to define good and evil. This is intentional. It defines law and chaos, but in a far looser form. This system categorizes motivations, not actions, so why a character does something is far more important than what a character does. In fact, most actions can fit into more than one category. Alignment subtypes like good, evil, law, and chaos exist for outsiders and spells, but don't affect a character's written alignment. Spells or effects that require alignment either work or don't work, depending on what the GM things should happen in the specific situation. Paladins and antipaladins can smite anything. Paladins have codes of conduct, but they are not connected to alignment.
Thoughts? Anything I forgot to mention (I'm sure I forgot something)?
Very interesting, and, I can tell, well thought out. Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm sure the reason you posted it was to possibly find flaws.
It seems to me that there is no overriding need for any alignment system as you have laid it out. As you've said it is more a set of descriptors for motivations. At that point why have any alignment system, period? If motivations are called into question, for whatever reason, any player could find a reasonable argument to fit their actions into, really, any of the categories.
Example: I shoveled the snow off the driveway.
Motivation?
Order: I like a neat and orderly driveway and snow makes it look less clean and orderly.
Independence: I wanted some time by myself, and I thoroughly enjoy menial labor as a means to that end.
Service: I know my wife likes a nice clean driveway, so I did it for her.
Ambition: I want to get lucky later, and knowing that my wife likes a nice clean driveway I shoveled it to impress her and increase my chances of said luckiness.
Indifference: I didn't really care whether or not the driveway was clear, it was just something to do besides sit on the couch and flip channels.
Obviously that example is not a "fantasy adventure" setting example, but hopefully it provides the context for my argument.
If this is your system, why define alignment at all? Why not just get rid of it and simply use the
This system categorizes motivations, not actions, so why a character does something is far more important than what a character does. In fact, most actions can fit into more than one category. Alignment subtypes like good, evil, law, and chaos exist for outsiders and spells, but don't affect a character's written alignment. Spells or effects that require alignment either work or don't work, depending on what the GM thinks should happen in the specific situation. Paladins and antipaladins can smite anything. Paladins have codes of conduct, but they are not connected to alignment.
and be done with it? Essentially you've gotten rid of the mechanics of alignment anyway. Why not just go the full nine, and forget the descriptors?
That's actually a good point. I just may do that.
I went through a similar line of thought for my game.
Alignment is a useful tool, if you want mechanics that affect the good and the wicket differently. Cleansing divine energies, and such stuff. And I am not to fond of such things either. As a GM, I like alignment as a quick indicator when comming upon stat blocks in books, as it helps you anticipate the NPCs role in adventures and campaigns. But again, that mostly works when you have a world in which there are good guys and bad guys.
Jade Empire had a very interesting Open Palm/Closed Fist system (which they apparently completely forgot just after the moment it was explained in the game), but most of the times it really comes down to being an indicator for allies and enemies.
The service/ambition thing is actually very nice. But for what purpose is it there?
Service/ambition was supposed to replace the good/evil matrix.
Have you considered something similar to Pendragon system? Each characater had a number of paired personality traits with a numbers in pair summing for a total of 20. So character coud be Loyal/Traitorus at 12/8, Courageous/Cowardly 5/15, Lusty/Chaste 10/10, etc, etc.
I've never heard of Pendragon. Can you tell me more?
I think even mechanically irrelevant character description systems are good for helping encourage thoughtful roleplay. I have a professor who uses the dresden files rpg's chatacter description system and awards/removes hero points for roleplay, iirc. He says it works well.
When mucking with alignment you need to be wary of taking away player abilities. Paladins like to lean on their "Detect Evil" and they may feel shortchanged if one of their abilities is suddenly just gone (though smiting anything helps).
Even as a Pally lover (just check my awesome pic) I couldn't help but be impressed with it's thoroughness and well-thought out reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better idea: just chuck alignments and have players play a concept, not a trope.
|
To be honest, I'm not sure replacing the basic alignment structure with a seemingly more complicated one helps unless it offers some benefit to offset, and I'm not seeing the benefit.
As it is, the Alignment System is a Game Mechanic, and it's tied into the System. So, ignoring the impact it may or may not have on Role Playing, it's there for Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, DR Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, Smite Good/Evil, etc.
Simply doing away with the system negates all of the above, and, don't forget, that Good/Evil or Law/Chaos are "real" elements in the game--we're not talking something as mundane as our ethical quandaries in this world as to whether Action X is "good" or "bad", or who's to judge them and how--Good and Evil are forces in the game, just as palpable and real as Force, Fire, Acid or any other "concrete" force/power in the world. Certain planes are strongly tied to one aspect of alignment, some creatures are clear representatives of Law or Chaos, Good or Evil, and when something is Evil or Good then it is empowered by that actual aspect of, and inherent to, the world--just as your fireball is made of...fire.
So, it's not easy to tear it out of the world and still have the mechanics function like they're intended.
However, Alignment really can have little to no bearing on roleplaying--or at least you don't have to use it as a character's "personality descriptor". Alignments are just descriptors of how a character has "aligned" itself with these elementary forces of the world, period. It can end there and simply satisfy all the associated game mechanics without affecting the character him/herself.
Then, for role playing, you can do anything you'd like--in my games I have the Alignments to satisfy the mechanics, but I use a set of Hidden and Surface traits (borrowed from FASA's Earthdawn circa 1991) to describe the characters. World of Darkness has Nature and Demeanor, and it's essentially the same--these are the roleplaying hooks, these are the ways to help a player decide what his/her character would do, and how they'd act.
But, ultimately, you can skip the traits as well-it's all up to how you want to play the game. However, I think taking out the mechanic of alignments (as written) without a suitable replacement hinders those aspects or classes of the game that rely upon them--a Paladin without Smite loses a key feature of the class. Detect Evil is, or can be, no more than a sense, and it still won't indicate if the source of evil is lying or telling the truth, being helpful or harmful, etc.
Lawful Good also isn't the straightjacket most think it is--I've seen LG paladins who were bawdy, racist/bigoted, foul-mouthed, etc--but none of that affects their Alignment since how they're played isn't tied to how they're aligned--they still favored and represented Law, and they were still Good.
So, the overall question is, do you dislike the mechanics of Alignment, which necessitates some significant tweaking to the game, or do you just dislike the roleplaying aspect--which can be easily separated from it, and without the need of a "replacement" system of equal complexity...
my 2c
I made something similar to this, only a little more complicated. I had different names for things, but your Service and Ambition sound exactly like my Heroism and Villainy. The reason I changed them from Good and Evil is because I wanted categories that were still evocative and relevant to fantasy adventures, but with specific enough definitions as to be meaningful.
|
I like it well enough.
(Though I like the traditional D&D system more.)
One of the things that makes the D&D system a really good system is that evil IS evil -- implying that those many, many gamers that just want to kill the monster can just kill monsters.
For these gamers encounters with surrendering or negotiating w/ baddies and such are not what they signed up for to spend 6-8 of their precious free hours a week to play. With the traditional system you can have "evil" monsters for those gamers who don't enjoy Alignment issues and also "shades-of-gray" evil/neutral monsters and situations that other gamers really enjoy.
.
.
.
In my experience with systems like the Pendragon, it can become a bit bulky for what it does and even then sometimes causes "issues" the way the traditional D&D system sometimes does.
.
.
.
Better idea: just chuck alignments and have players play a concept, not a trope.
Cuz, yeah, "concepts" are sooo different from "tropes" at the gaming table...
;)|
|
The "Champion" from the Arcana Evolved is the REAL d20 "Paladin" Class.
It's what the Paladin would have been in 3.0 if Monte Cook had been allowed to head up the design for the PHB in addition to the DMG. It's a shame that a no-talent hack (AKA Jon Tweet) was allowed to get anywhere near the d20 development system.
|
The "Champion" from the Arcana Evolved is the REAL d20 "Paladin" Class.
It's what the Paladin would have been in 3.0 if Monte Cook had been allowed to head up the design for the PHB in addition to the DMG. It's a shame that a no-talent hack (AKA Jon Tweet) was allowed to get anywhere near the d20 development system.
You might want to think twice before you diss the guy who designed the best RPG system ever (Ars Magica), which makes d20 (or any iteration of D&D for that matter) look like a silly wargame in comparison.
|
|
You're right, I should check it out -- if only I had the time, right...
How 'bout this instead: the 3.0 DMG is the greatest Core book D&D has EVER had, (obviously including Pathfinder as D&D) -- all hail Monte Cook. And the mechanics and stats-work for monsters & fighting is Skip Williams' -- making Tweet's contribution to 3.0 not-so-impressive from my perspective. Indeed, all the problems with 3.0, and later in 3.5 when Monte Cook and Skip Williams left, are a result of Tweet's work (along w/ Andy Collins in 3.5) -- thus my remarks against Mr. Tweet.
I am completely ignorant of Ars Magica or anything outside of D&D. Apologies if Ars Magica is awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am completely ignorant of Ars Magica or anything outside of D&D. Apologies if Ars Magica is awesome.Don't worry, it's not. ;)
I beg to differ. And all the Houses Of Hermes too.
|
|
You're right, I should check it out -- if only I had the time, right...
How 'bout this instead: the 3.0 DMG is the greatest Core book D&D has EVER had, (obviously including Pathfinder as D&D) -- all hail Monte Cook. And the mechanics and stats-work for monsters & fighting is Skip Williams' -- making Tweet's contribution to 3.0 not-so-impressive from my perspective. Indeed, all the problems with 3.0, and later in 3.5 when Monte Cook and Skip Williams left, are a result of Tweet's work (along w/ Andy Collins in 3.5) -- thus my remarks against Mr. Tweet.
I am completely ignorant of Ars Magica or anything outside of D&D. Apologies if Ars Magica is awesome.
Skip "Let's give Undead d12 hit dice without static hp bonus to compensate for the fact that they are immune to poison and can't be sneak attacked" Williams?
Monte "Ivory Tower Game Design" Cook?
I'm not sure where you're getting the "all the problems from". Tweet is responsible for the 3.0 skill system which, while wasn't perfect, (cross-class skills I am looking at you) was D&D's first ever go at answering the burning question "what I can actually do apart from hitting things". You know, that thing that was pure DM fiat territory since 1E and one of the bigger point-n-laugh issues with D&D when compared to oth... Oh wait, you don't know any RPG apart from D&D. Why am I even posting this?