Alternate settlement alignment suggestion

[Xeriar]

You get to pick two alignment axii. Lawful and good, good and neutral, etc. If the alignments cross, TN gets added. This way most settlements have six alignments available. Or all would if the TN cross gets to add a corner, but such a construct would normally be a roleplaying one rather than a gamey one.

Kingdoms could be similar, having up to two axii and requiring all settlements to have one of them.

I think this would permit a wider and more vibrant array of communities.

[Nihimon]

Ryan has suggested that they might allow "all of one" or "none of one", which I understood to mean that we could require every resident to have Good somewhere in their alignment, or to not have Evil anywhere in their alignment.

[Onishi]

Xeriar wrote:

You get to pick two alignment axii. Lawful and good, good and neutral, etc. If the alignments cross, TN gets added. This way most settlements have six alignments available. Or all would if the TN cross gets to add a corner, but such a construct would normally be a roleplaying one rather than a gamey one.

Kingdoms could be similar, having up to two axii and requiring all settlements to have one of them.

I think this would permit a wider and more vibrant array of communities.

I think adding 6 compatable alignments isn't the goal, I believe they are more strongly considering banning TN to avoid settlements having too many alignments availabe. I think going to the extremes of say "any non evil" broadens things to the point where it loses much of it's meaning.

[Forencith]

I wish they would allow settlements to choose a set amount of contiguous space on the alignment plane. So, if the plane is 3 "alignments" by 3 "alignments" large (an area of 9 "alignments"), I wish they would allow settlements to just draw a single circle on the plane with an area of 3 "alignments" (moving the circle off the edge would create a hemisphere and increase the size of the arc to keep the internal area 3 "alignments" large). This would allow TN to be selected and in fact probably be selected in every case (which makes sense since the NPC residents are probably not taking a side in the war. This means they are N...funny to allow them but not PC who just want to craft or play a merchant...and do not want to take a side in the war. Why would you not allow them to fuel your towns economy?)

Anyways, as I was saying, it would allow the circle to be placed in the very center, allowing members of all alignments, but...only those who stay toward the neutral end. If they stray too far to an extreme, they leave the circle and can no longer be residents.

In my opinion this would actually be too much work for many and TN towns would not end up with the advantages previously discussed. Nor would it be illogically and arbitrarily nixed from consideration as an alignment choice. This being the wilds, it seems logical to me that most of the towns composed of average folk the gods don't bother with would be more Neutral leaning (think Bartertown).

[Forencith]

To illustrate, each of these has an area of 4 "alignments". The circle could be placed anywhere on the alignment spectrum. Notice the circles arc decreases (become more straight) as the center of the circle moves toward an edge to maintain the 4 "alignments" internal area. Moving the center of the circle off the edge would continue to decrease the arc until at the extreme it creates a straight edge closing off a 4 "alignment" area.

True Neutral
Extreme Neutral Good
Extreme Chaotic Evil

A "pure lawful" settlement would center the area off the grid to the center left and result in the entire Lawful axis selected (as well as the left third of the neutral axis).

A "pure good" settlement would center the area off the grid to the center top and result in the entire Good axis selected (as well as the top third of the neutral axis).

The difference here is that each characters (and Gods) alignment would need to be much more detailed than simply LG...it would need a position on the plane such as if each alignment is 100 x 100, with origin at bottom left, LG is actually from (0,200) to (100,200) and (0,300) to (100,300). I assume selecting an alignment at start would place you in the center of any given alignment and it will shift based upon how you play (what you enjoy).

[Xeriar]

Nihimon wrote:

Ryan has suggested that they might allow "all of one" or "none of one", which I understood to mean that we could require every resident to have Good somewhere in their alignment, or to not have Evil anywhere in their alignment.

My suggestion is similar, but more flexible. You could disallow NE/CE/CN (especially as CN often gets played as 'impulsive nutjob') or likewise bar the law-disrespecting do-gooders conversely. Everyone can include 'up to' six alignments in such a scenario.

Onishi wrote:

I think adding 6 compatable alignments isn't the goal, I believe they are more strongly considering banning TN to avoid settlements having too many alignments availabe. I think going to the extremes of say "any non evil" broadens things to the point where it loses much of it's meaning.

I have two issues with this perspective.

One is that flat-out 'banning TN' is an artificial restriction on what amounts to what could be a genuinely useful roleplaying choice. This replaces that by making choosing TN to be a disadvantage, at least in terms of number of alignments.

Second, I feel that alignment restrictions ought to be able to be fairly loose. Most settlements are going to be primarily concerned with 'Can you be a functioning member of our society?' which makes sense on its face, in my suggestion, many settlements would pick the lawful and good axii, though others are possible.

Forencith wrote:

I wish they would allow settlements to choose a set amount of contiguous space on the alignment plane. So, if the plane is 3 "alignments" by 3 "alignments" large (an area of 9 "alignments"), I wish they would allow settlements to just draw a single circle on the plane with an area of 3 "alignments" (moving the circle off the edge would create a hemisphere and increase the size of the arc to keep the internal area 3 "alignments" large). This would allow TN to be selected and in fact probably be selected in every case (which makes sense since the NPC residents are probably not taking a side in the war. This means they are N...funny to allow them but not PC who just want to craft or play a merchant...and do not want to take a side in the war. Why would you not allow them to fuel your towns economy?)

I think this is unnecessarily complicating things, and would confuse people - if I'm reading you right, they could get booted out halfway through an alignment shift?

[Forencith]

That is true, but you would be able to see where on the scale you are at any given time...and it would be cool if you could see your alignment diachronically, meaning over time. So, you would be able to see your gradual shifting and plan accordingly.

It might seem complicated but all the actual player would see in the UI when deciding their settlements alignment is a circle (and center) on the plane that shifts as they move it about. The math would all be on the backend.

It is the only logical way I have thought of or seen so far to allow the use of all the alignments without giving weight to any. TN would not allow any extremes but would allow any in the center, including those who lean toward G, L, C, or even E...as long as they do not act with extremes. It in that is specifically allows members who stray only so far from the chosen alignment.

[Nihimon]

Xeriar wrote:

My suggestion is similar, but more flexible.

I proposed something quite flexible myself, but Ryan explained why he wasn't fond of that idea.

[Xeriar]

Forencith wrote:

That is true, but you would be able to see where on the scale you are at any given time...and it would be cool if you could see your alignment diachronically, meaning over time. So, you would be able to see your gradual shifting and plan accordingly.

It might seem complicated but all the actual player would see in the UI when deciding their settlements alignment is a circle (and center) on the plane that shifts as they move it about. The math would all be on the backend.

It is the only logical way I have thought of or seen so far to allow the use of all the alignments without giving weight to any. TN would not allow any extremes but would allow any in the center, including those who lean toward G, L, C, or even E...as long as they do not act with extremes. It in that is specifically allows members who stray only so far from the chosen alignment.

Here, though, the player now has a multitude of transitions to concern themselves with. I don't think that's wise.

Nihimon wrote:

I proposed something quite flexible myself, but Ryan explained why he wasn't fond of that idea.

Yours wasn't really a limit. It was a proposal to abolish the rule in favor of something fundamentally different rather than refine it.

[Vastlyapparent]

Nihimon wrote:

Xeriar wrote:

My suggestion is similar, but more flexible.

I proposed something quite flexible myself, but Ryan explained why he wasn't fond of that idea.

I get his concern there, though, depending on how alignments actually work, that sort of problem could sort itself out. People playing evil characters in a "Neutral" settlement that is really more of a good aligned one will find themselves at odds with the leadership.

Personally, I'm in favor of having a separate alignment selection for the leadership and populous. I picture the leadership being a more restricted, focused, range of alignments or singular alignment, with the population being more open, allowing for tolerance.

The difference would be most pronounced in democratically oriented communities where everyone has a vote. Anyone in the community who is not of the allowed leadership alignments would lose their vote. It would be less obvious in a dictatorship, since only the leader has power anyways.

This would require an heir/successor system.

[Nihimon]

Vastlyapparent wrote:

Personally, I'm in favor of having a separate alignment selection for the leadership and populous.

The first thing that made me think of was a secretly Evil mayor in a putatively Good town.

[Vastlyapparent]

Nihimon wrote:

The first thing that made me think of was a secretly Evil mayor in a putatively Good town.

I hope the system ends up flexible enough to allow some interesting shenanigans, or can be manipulated by abilities/magic that hide/alter alignment to achieve similar results.

[Reliken]

Strongly agreed! Plus, that makes for the more interesting sandbox!

Compare a community where they know their leader is an evil bastard... okay.

... with a happy, bustling community that THINKS their leader is a good, kind-hearted soul, who is secretly an evil bastard, siphoning taxes to pay for murder and drug running and has plans of waging war on the peaceful settlement next door?

I think the latter scenario has many more opportunities for interesting, exciting, dynamic player interactions.

[Ryan Dancey]

I think that in reality the "hidden evil" mayor is just going to screw his loyal companions. That's plenty evil. I would argue it is way more evil than screwing some faceless NPCs.