|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking that the current evil/good and law/chaos system doesn't really work. Well, at least the evil/good part - most people don't fight over law and chaos as much but all it takes as a look at any one of the alignment "discussions" on the forums to realize the current model leaves too much room for interpretation.
One of the reasons this came to mind was from a discussion about playing evil characters, and the realization that just because they're Evil (aligned) doesn't mean that they're evil in every possible way. In a similar manner, people who are overall good often have a "fatal flaw" or at least some kind of weakness. Real people are very multi-faceted, and interesting characters should be, too. Unfortunately in the world of Pathfinder, we have spells and abilities that are designed to specifically target concepts such as Evil, Chaotic, Good, and Lawful. These are tangible properties of a person and central to the game mechanics. So any changes need to still work within that framework.
When creating your character, instead of simply choosing your alignment from the current array, you're presented with a list of 7 vices and virtues (inspired by Rise of the Runelords). For each pair, you select if this is a vice, a virtue, or not strongly aligned. While you could make a very boring character by having no vices or virtues, the more that are selected, the more interesting the character will be. A character with at least 5 virtues is considered Good aligned, a character with at least 5 vices is considered Evil, and anything in-between is Neutral. An 8th, separate trait takes care of the Lawful/Chaotic axis.
The Vices and Virtues are as follows:
Lust / Purity
Gluttony / Temperance
Greed / Generosity
Sloth / Diligence
Wrath / Kindness
Envy / Charity
Pride / Humility
Now every new character has personality seeds that aid in roleplaying. Instead of an ambiguous I'm a good person, you have specific traits that shape how that character will act in many situations.
These can also be used to track alignment shifts. Spending night after night drinking heavily at the inn might shift a character from Temperance to Gluttony, ultimately affecting the overall alignment. Almost all character actions can be tracked in this manner to adjust alignment, if needed. Thus, spells such as Atonement still have their place and purpose, but it's now easier to track when and if an alignment change needs to take place.
Thoughts? Comments? There may be other consequences of this change that I haven't considered. I'm happy to hear feedback.
If I run around setting fire to orphanages for fun then I can still balance out to Good by not having sex.
I found a better fix for alignments: get rid of them.
|
|
I did say Purity, not Chastity (or Abstinence). However, you bring up a good point - maybe I need to add descriptions or definitions to each Vice and Virtue.
This may also require additional requirements for certain classes, such as Paladin. While most others might get away with having a couple of vices but still being overall good, a Paladin who gets their very powers and abilities from being good and righteous might need a specific rule forbidding any vices - at worst they could have two traits that aren't strongly aligned.
My whole reason for doing this is to reconcile the many shades of grey of our real world morality with Pathfinder, where as I mentioned before alignment is a very real and measurable quality. Its mechanics are very important to many classes and abilities, so completely scrapping alignment altogether isn't an option.
Not bad, but not the whole story either. In my not so humble opinion, if alignment is to be accurate, deep and helpful for the big picture, it needs to be relative.
You're started to define right and wrong, rather than just name them, but the next big step is to stop judging these traits and lets the characters group them into their own personal good and evil categories.
Overall, I like what you've done, but if there's one thing that stops it meeting your apparent goals, it's the lack of any measurement of degree or virtue and vice. An incarnation of envy can be good because it conducts itself with a moderate degree of diligence and temperance, none of which actually prevent it being a demon out to ruin the world. That seems pretty off.
Generally I use alignments as a guide for roleplaying than as a character limitation. For instance, say a character wants to play a LE character, I'll have him decide on a Lawful trait (ex: always returns favors to people who are useful to him) and an evil one (desires power and will do almost anything to grab it). Neutral characters become more difficult to think out, because I need the player to come up with a trait for both side of the axis.
I never tell a player he cannot do something because his alignment prohibits it, because that's not how the real world works. For most characters, that won't come into play unless the character dies (and their soul is judged), for clerics and such, if they do something that goes against the teachings of their deity (which is typically out of alignment) they lose their powers for 24 hours, and if they continue then they can't advance without atonement.
I think your proposed system could work, but if you used it, I think you would need to forgo the Good/Evil classification and think instead about aligning specific deities and outsiders with these virtues/vices. For instance, an Azata might have Humility, Kindness, and Diligence, but would also have Lust and Gluttony. Some other god or outsider might not care about Pride but is a stickler on Temperance.
|
|
I like the idea of aligning deities with certain virtues and vices. I might have to look at them and see what I can come up with.
My main reason for keeping the Good/Evil classification is for compatibility with all of the classes and abilities that require it. There's a significant chunk of game mechanics that's tied to those ideas. So unless I wanted to change Protection from Evil to Protection from Lust/Gluttony/Greed/Sloth/Wrath/Envy/Pride...
It would be easier to just come up with a specific code for such classes. The Barbarian alignment restriction seemed more like a personality thing than a moral one, te Druid one always seemed odd (you can be LN and revere nature properly but not LE?), for paladin's you just have to list the thing a paladin would normally never do/always try to do as a LG character.
You might be able to base a specific code of conduct around each virtue for different Paladins.
Also, what is the difference between Charity and Generosity in this case?
I'm starting to like this idea. It may not work in my games in this EXACT form, but I like the thought making the behavioral requirements for the spiritual classes more specific to the class.
I would never do away with alignment entirely; outsiders and spiritual creatures like ghosts would be aligned, making spells like Protection from Evil still helpful, but it's more appropriate for the spells and allows for more moral ambiguity in players.
I like this idea. It's a useful tool to help define characters. Thank you for posting.
|
|
Here's some class-specific clarifications.
Barbarian - Must have Wrath Vice
Cleric/Inquisitor - Must have at least one Vice or Virtue associated with their Deity.
Monk - Must have Purity and Temperance
Paladin - Cannot have any Vice. Unaligned attributes that become a vice will cause a Paladin to lose their powers until atonement is made.
I'm working on definitions, and then I'll add deities.
|
|
I would never do away with alignment entirely; outsiders and spiritual creatures like ghosts would be aligned, making spells like Protection from Evil still helpful, but it's more appropriate for the spells and allows for more moral ambiguity in players.
I completely agree. This is not a template for monsters at all, and should only be used for PCs and possibly NPCs. It's mainly an RP aid, and I'm trying to keep any mechanical implications minimal.
|
This is a really neat idea. I'm yearning to try it out now.
Paladin - Cannot have any Vice. Unaligned attributes that become a vice will cause a Paladin to lose their powers until atonement is made.
I totally understand where you're coming from here, but I personally think the Paladin should be allowed once Vice. Imagine that nice meaty roleplay of the Paladin who is good-hearted, but full of himself or who accepts rewards a little too quickly. Now we've got some nice dramatic tension a-going-ons.
|
|
Paladin is a really tricky one. I'm torn between how much to allow vices due to their overly restrictive code. I think I'm leaning towards keeping it as only allowing for two unaligned - those represent flaws or temptations that constitute an internal struggle, but if and when he acts on them, they have the potential to turn it into a vice.
Part of that is to keep Paladins from exploiting the system for shenanigans such as Roberta hinted at above - getting to indulge in one really nasty thing as much as he wants as long as he doesn't touch the other vices. Really doesn't work for a Paladin, whose very powers come from being Good.
|
|
Vices
Lust - Includes carnal desires, objectification of others, and lecherousness. Commonly leads to or is associated with Gluttony and Envy.
Gluttony - Eating or drinking to excess. Includes getting drunk, excessive merriment, and drug use. Sometimes associated with Sloth, and drunkedness often accompanies Wrath.
Greed - Desires for wealth, possessions, knowledge, fame, or praise. Not sharing found treasure with party members. Goes hand in hand with Envy.
Sloth - Laziness or aversion to work. Reluctance to help others or participate in the group, or to continue without resting. The 10-minute adventuring day belongs here.
Wrath - Anger, loss of temper, vengeance or revenge. Can also be as simple as resentful indignation.
Envy - Jealosy or covetousness of others' advantages, success, possessions, and money. Theft is a common example. Sometimes includes Lust.
Pride - Sense of superiority, holiness (holier-than-thou), importance, or dignity. Conceit, egotism, or vanity.
This is harder than I thought - virtues to come shortly.
|
First off, definitions will be very important. For example, my high school ethics class defined Lust as not simply sexual promiscuity, but one that involves treating other people as objects who exist to satisfy your desires. By that metric a promiscuous person who legitimately respects their lovers isn't actually lustful.
Also consider condensing your list slightly. It looks like you're trying to heavily reference Christian/Catholic virtues and vices, and that's thematically interesting. However, there's some overlap and that makes it hard to define distinct virtues/vices (leading to the question of how generosity is different from charity).
For example, Lust and Gluttony have common themes around overindulging in physical pleasure, so I might combine Lust and Gluttony into Indulgence, opposed by Self-Restraint. (And then monks simply have the very appropriate single virtue of self-restraint.)
Greed and Envy are both about what you have, albeit with a bit of difference regarding whether the focus is on wanting to have more than what you need or wanting specifically what others have. They could be combined - I'd call it "covetousness." The virtue would be "generosity."
Sloth, Wrath, Pride, and their opposites are probably distinct enough to keep as-is.
First off, definitions will be very important. For example, my high school ethics class defined Lust as not simply sexual promiscuity, but one that involves treating other people as objects who exist to satisfy your desires. By that metric a promiscuous person who legitimately respects their lovers isn't actually lustful.
Also consider condensing your list slightly. It looks like you're trying to heavily reference Christian/Catholic virtues and vices, and that's thematically interesting. However, there's some overlap and that makes it hard to define distinct virtues/vices (leading to the question of how generosity is different from charity).
For example, Lust and Gluttony have common themes around overindulging in physical pleasure, so I might combine Lust and Gluttony into Indulgence, opposed by Self-Restraint. (And then monks simply have the very appropriate single virtue of self-restraint.)
Greed and Envy are both about what you have, albeit with a bit of difference regarding whether the focus is on wanting to have more than what you need or wanting specifically what others have. They could be combined - I'd call it "covetousness." The virtue would be "generosity."
Sloth, Wrath, Pride, and their opposites are probably distinct enough to keep as-is.
Temperance I think is a better name than Self-Restraint, but other than that I agree.
|
|
It's not a bad idea, and honestly I wouldn't have used that particular list if it wasn't already featured prominently in Pathfinder products (it's all over Rise of the Runelords). Since there's already a precedent for that particular list within the world of Golarian, that's what I'm going with. I'm trying to make the definitions distinct and bringing in ideas that aren't limited to the Christian/Catholic definitions.
I'm totally open to suggestions or help with definitions, too.
There's a problem here! Your 'evil' vices include non-evil behaviour. Getting drunk and eating a lot harm nobody in themselves. Labelling taking drugs as a vice is an oversimplification. 'Drugs' is a ridiculously broad term!
This doesn't work for me at all suddenly. It reminds me of the ridiculous secularised faith virtue in new world of darkness, which amounts to some kind of vague belief that things happen for a reason. These vices seem to be here to complete a list, not to categorise behaviours and motivations.
if you wish to differentiate between virtues and vices, I suggest that vices be defined so that pursuing them inherently inflicts suffering on others and virtues be defined so that pursuing them always involves suffering for the sake of others.
|
|
Perhaps instead of drug use, it should be drug addiction.
Also, keep in mind that this is an attempt to define what is good in evil in a world where such ideas are so concrete that they are measurable and have tangible effects. This is NOT an attempt to define what is good and evil in the real world, and there will be some differences.
Also, I should clarify that vices don't equate evil. Having a single vice doesn't automatically make you evil. You can have up to four vices and not be technically evil.
|
|
Ok, honestly these definitions are really hard. If you're going to criticize any of them, I would appreciate your suggestion for how to replace it.
Also, these are not all-inclusive, nor do any of them require that all definitions be used for any particular vice or virtue. They are meant to be guidelines.
I've revised a few of the vices so here's the complete list:
Vices
Lust - Includes carnal desires, objectification of others, and lecherousness. Commonly leads to or is associated with Gluttony and Envy.
Gluttony - Eating or drinking to excess. Includes getting drunk, excessive merriment, and drug use (especially addiction). Sometimes associated with Sloth, and drunkedness often accompanies Wrath.
Greed - Desires for wealth, possessions, knowledge, fame, or praise. Pettiness or stinginess. Goes hand in hand with Envy.
Sloth - Laziness or aversion to work. Reluctance to help others or participate in the group, or to continue without resting. The 10-minute adventuring day belongs here.
Wrath - Anger, loss of temper, vengeance or revenge, malevolence, and cruelty. Can also be as simple as resentful indignation.
Envy - Jealosy or covetousness of others' advantages, success, possessions, and money. Theft is a common example. Sometimes includes Lust.
Pride - Sense of superiority, holiness (holier-than-thou), importance, or dignity. Conceit, egotism, or vanity.
Virtues
Purity - Faithfulness, integrity, and cleanliness, and love. Can also include innocence and chastity.
Temperance - Moderation, self-restraint or self-control, and patience.
Generosity - Magnanimity, sharing in actions or substance, and helping others.
Diligence - Hard working, care and caution or attention to detail, and a drive to complete tasks
Kindness - Mercy, forgiveness, and compassion. Can include sympathy or empathy as well.
Charity - Love towards those in need or in disfavor, often shown by giving of help, money or food. Also includes confidence, contentedness, good will, and leniency.
Humility - Modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance or rank. Can be but is not always meekness or submissiveness.
|
|
Deities
Abadar - Greed, Temperance
Asmodeus - Pride, Envy
Calistra - Lust, Wrath
Cayden Cailean - Gluttony, Lust, Charity
Desna - Charity, Kindness
Erastil - Humility, Diligence
Gorum - Wrath, Diligence
Gozreh - Temperance, Wrath
Iomedae - Purity, Diligence
Irori - Purity, Temperance
Lamashtu - Gluttony, Wrath
Nethys - Greed, Temperance
Norgorber - Greed, Temperance
Pharasma - Temperance, Pride
Rovagug - Wrath, Greed
Sarenrae - Kindness, Temperance
Shelyn - Purity, Generosity
Torag - Diligence, Purity
Urgathoa - Gluttony, Envy
Zon-Kuthon - Envy, Wrath
Some of these are questionable and I'm open to suggestions for changes, replacements, or additions.
There is still great overlap between Greed's opposing virtue (Generosity) and Envy's (Charity). Might I suggest replacing Generosity with Self-Sacrifice?
Self-Sacrifice: Willingness to give of oneself to satisfy the needs of others; a disregard for one's own well-being in the pursuit of righteous ends.
In this way, Greed's self-advancement is opposed by martyrdom in service toward the greater good. I perceive much less overlap with Charity that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this Wikipedia article may be of use.
|
|
Also, this Wikipedia article may be of use.
Dang, I wish I had seen that earlier. Could have saved me a ton of work. I think I will borrow heavily from it.
|
|
Those virtues would fit well under certain conditions. In a world like Pathfinder, though, they're too constraining.
As a suggestion, keep it simple and flexible. The alignments are, at the core, defined by four sentences and a small list of what those imply.
Evil: Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Lawful: Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic: Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
In an effort to keep it simple and flexible, allow the characters to pick what qualities, not 'virtues and vices', emphasize their character which defines them as chaotic good, lawful evil or what have you. Only when they violate those qualities, or when they outright portray another quality, do you change their alignment. Ultimately, its just stating the current alignment system in a more defined manner, which seems to be the goal of Virtues and Vices. Not going to try to make a complete chart for you, but I think fewer is better...
Good Qualities
Benevolence, Respect, protects life
Evil Qualities
Selfishness, Cruelty, destroys life
Lawful Qualities
Trustworthiness, Obedience, protects law
Chaotic Qualities
Adaptability, Spontaneity, destroys law
Neutral Qualities
Tolerance, Pragmatic, maintains the whole
Respect: Everyone deserves a chance. Dignity is important.
Protects life: A solid way to be a good guy.
Selfishness: The world is ripe for the taking. Exciting emotions.
Cruelty: Dominance over overs is something that some enjoy in itself.
Destroys life: Does it get any more evil than this?
Trustworthiness: This character honors debts and will be honest, if not straightforward.
Obedience: Be it by faith or simplicity, the word from on high is law.
Protects law: Without society or order, life would be so much worse!
Adaptability: Whatever it takes. The needs justify the ends.
Spontaneity: Whims and ideas come and go like the wind for this character.
Destroys law: Has no love for oppression of any kind.
Tolerance: Speaks for itself.
Pragmatic: Unidealistic, down-to-earth point of view.
Maintains the whole: Tries to maintain some form of balance in their surroundings, be it by destroying or protecting law and life.
Each quality could be taken into three degrees, of mild (1), moderate (2), and extreme (3). Add up each alignment quality and then subtract opposing types (good opposes evil, law opposes chaos). Neutral alignment points can apply to either axis in a arrangement the player chooses after at least 1 point is in both axis, not in excess of the total neutral alignment points. The alignment on each axis that is greatest is the character's matching alignment, with ties with neutral going toward the other alignment. The goal of this is to have a character pick at least one quality of their alignment, and to optionally have other qualities to a lesser degree.
For example, a sorcerer could be very selfish (3 evil), very pragmatic man (3 neutral) who tries a little to protect life (1 good) around him and be a bit trustworthy (1 lawful), and moderately adaptable (2 chaos). That totals 2 evil, 1 chaos, 3 neutral. This character could be chaotic evil, but would more likely be neutral evil. Alternatively, a bard may strive hard to protect the whole (3 neutral), but be adaptable (2 chaotic) and spontaneous (2 chaotic), a little selfish (1 evil) and very respectful (3 good). Totaling 2 good, 4 chaotic, 3 neutral. This bard is chaotic good.
There's a lot of gray area, but its just as easy to be black-and-white: taking all the qualities of your given alignment(s) would comfortably put a character deep into the pocket of their alignment. A stereotypical lawful neutral character would then be very trustworthy, obedient to the letter and protects the law at all costs.
Should I just post this in an alternate alignment alternative thread?
Count Buggula, I don't think the problem is your definitions. I think the problem is your lists. I know I brought it up just to criticise it, but have you looked at the virtues and vices in new world of darkness? Most of those seem like they'd work. Here's a write-up of some virtues which I think are genuinely different from each other and acceptably good. I dunno if the list needs to be longer. I'll do vices later.
Personally I think there's a good argument that justice is a base instinct barely distinguishable from a desire for vengeance, but then I'm crazy and that wouldn't fit well in D&D.
Charity: Helping others at cost or risk to yourself.
Charitable characters are guided by the principle that one should treat others as one would wish to be treated. They give to improve the lives of others and make sacrifices when others need them too.
Fortitude: Working for your beliefs at cost or risk to yourself. Sticking to your guns in spite of adversity. Moral strength.
If somebody with true fortitude thinks it's wrong to kill, they will not kill even to save their own life. If they fight injustice, they will keep fighting it no matter the consequences.
Justice: Punishing the wicked at cost or risk to yourself.
This is a related but very different virtue to Fortitude; Following the virtue of justice is a much more proactive affair.
Where a character with fortitude keeps doing good even when trouble comes a long, a character with justice does good by seeking out the cause of others' troubles and attacking it.
Prudence: Maintaining integrity at the cost of opportunity.
They say everyone has his price, but if anybody doesn't, it's these guys. A prudent character won't cut down the forest where the elves live no matter how much they stand to gain. They won't be bribed or seduced into doing wrong. If they're in the town watch, they won't take protection money either.
They are not immune to being pressured, however. That comes under fortitude.
The good/evil axis is complex... and you answered with more complexity.
I think I have a very simple, effective, and reasonable system of good and evil
first I strip all emotiona and morals from the words. thus good is not about saving all life, and evil is not about destroying life and having a bunch of vices, the above are all results of being good/evil not the source.
second, accept that good and evil are relative just like big and small. although you can generally say this thing is big and this thing is small when you define them you have to define them in relative terms so as not to lock them down too much and cause too many exceptions.
third,
with the above in mind I generally apply 'expanding circle of morality' when evaluating Good/Evil. simply put the larger the circle of beings you value and consider when making decisions the more "good" a smaller more selfish circle is generally more "evil"
The reason I like this system is that most evil people dont actually view themselves as evil. they view themselves as some one who is just trying to survive, or looking out for number one, or even in many casses they view themselves as doing something beneficial for everyone but refuse to consider the views and welfare of everyone when implementing those decisions.
in this way Goblins are evil not because they want to kill everything... they are evil because they only care about themselves and those extremely close to them... like the leader that will punish or reward them. A paladin on the other hand is good because she is always considering the welfare of everyone even to the detriment of their own welfare. Note that this has nothing to do with nice/mean. A person can give free food to the poor, speak out against injustice and value life but still be evil if their only motivation is to make sure every one else sees them in a good light. In their heart all of these things are not really for the betterment of those around them and are only tools to raise their own power or status.
....
thats my take anyway... i spent way too much time writing this.
Nightskies, I'd disagree. There is a different between knowing you are holier, more closely connected to the divine, than other people, which a paladin or cleric almost certainly is, and treating people as less equal/human because of that. One is "I devote myself to my god; therefor I am closer to it than others." Much like a fighter would say, "I practice with weapons more than you do, so yes, I do know more about them." The other is, "Because I am closer to my god, I deserve more X(power, privileges, etc.) than others." much like a bully "Because I have more X(connections, power, etc), I get what I want."
Count! I'd suggest giving Lamashtu Lust over Gluttony. Her action of devotion is having sex after all.
Likewise, I'd switch out Greed with Sloth for Rovagug. He, and his followers don't want anything, and the FoC states that they don't make things or work, except to destroy.
|
|
I understand you Lloyd. However, paladins should usually be prideful. Being extremely prideful does not mean the person feels entitled. The proudest paladins would probably be the same ones who ask for no rewards.
From Wiki- they nail it on the head.
"With a negative connotation, pride refers to an inflated sense of one's personal status or accomplishments, often used synonymously with hubris. With a positive connotation, pride refers to a satisfied sense of attachment toward one's own or another's choices and actions, or toward a whole group of people, and is a product of praise, independent self-reflection, or a fulfilled feeling of belonging."
Could the negative connotation of pride apply to a paladin? I certainly think so. HOW MANY paladins have rattled on about how great they are? The last game I played with a paladin at the table, the character was so full of pride, it was nauseating. Allow me to share the sufferance. (insert deep toned egomaniac man-voice of sarcasm) "Oh yeah, I worship the goddess of beauty and love. She must think well of me, seeing how much of both I have. Do you have any idea how many poor souls have been saved with by my touch? Oh, let me tell you..."
I'm pretty sure he'd be a pretty upset player if the GM knocked down his alignment because of pride. I would be. Now, on to the constructive work...
The virtues should solidly be 'good', and not 'lawful', since it seems we're only concerned about the good/evil axis. Charity, self sacrifice, benevolence... are good ones that don't seem to be refutable. Ultimately, we're treading on very subjective ground here, so if there is a longer list like the OP's, only a few needs to be needed to actually be 'good' or otherwise.
Using the wiki definition, pride wouldn't be a vice at all. I think the difficulty comes from differences in meaning between times and topics. In this case, I was using in the sense of the seven deadly sins, wherein only the negative aspects of pride are considered, not the more general usage of today. My bad for not clarifying.
As for paladins, I've honestly never encountered a character like that, nor can I see a paladin acting that way. Saying something like that sarcastically, sure, but actually having some of the attitude, nope, just doesn't jive. Different experiences I guess.
It's difficult to separate 'lawful' from 'good' the virtues, as the original idea comes from the roman catholic tradition, wherein lawful behavior was/is good. The idea of the sins and virtues became popular during a time where treason wasn't just regarded as a crime, but a sin as well. Makes things messy.
|
|
I like Nightskies' and Mortuums' ideas, but if you're set on using the seven virtues and vices, I'd advise one or more of:
1) making the positives and negatives, respectively, especially clear so that they don't come off as neutral behavior
2) Using these as a descriptive guideline rather than tying them directly to alignment
3) Requiring that a virtue or vice be exaggerated or obviously constructive or destructive to others before it affects alignment
Essentially, you want to make sure that a person with a lot of vices is always more evil than a person with fewer vices and more virtues. If you're not careful about stressing the requirement for destructiveness, a promiscuous (lustful) person who drinks excessively (guttony), has a strong desire for fame and praise (greed) and thinks he deserves it (pride), but slacks off (sloth) will be considered evil since he has five of seven vices. But he's almost certainly less evil than a character who will kill someone over an insult (wrath, pride) and sacrifices strangers for power (greed) but is honest and hard-working (purity, diligence) and shows no particular envy or gluttony, and under your system that character would qualify as neutral.
Suggestions:
Vices
Lust - Includes carnal desires, objectification of others, and lecherousness, when such behaviors impede or destroy emotional relationships or degrade human dignity. Commonly leads to or is associated with Gluttony and Envy.
Gluttony - Eating or drinking to destructive or wasteful excess. Includes getting drunk, excessive merriment, and drug use (especially addiction) when this behavior interferes with more productive endeavors or causes disconcern with others' needs. Sometimes associated with Sloth, and drunkenness often accompanies Wrath.
Greed - Desires for wealth, possessions, knowledge, fame, or praise, and the willingness to sacrifice others to obtain these things. Pettiness or stinginess. Goes hand in hand with Envy.
Sloth - Laziness or aversion to work that manifests as apathy in the face of evil, reluctance to help others or participate in the group.
Wrath - Disproportionate anger, loss of temper, vengeance or revenge, malevolence, and cruelty. Can also be as simple as resentful indignation.
Envy - Jealousy or covetousness of others' advantages, success, possessions, and money manifesting as actions to take these possessions or else deprive others of them. Theft is a common example. Jealousy of a person's romantic partners overlaps with Lust.
Pride - Sense of superiority, holiness (holier-than-thou), importance, or dignity, causing one to dismiss others' rights or needs. Conceit, egotism, or vanity.
I removed the 10-minute adventuring day from Sloth because many people see it as practical in that a party isn't going to be as efficient or productive once it has expended key resources - if there's not a ticking clock, there's really no need to keep going.
I'll comment on the virtues later, but if you're going with the Catholic set, they aren't matched up right (which was giving me a bit of trouble commenting):
Lust/Purity
Gluttony/Temperance
Greed/Charity
Sloth/Diligence
Wrath/Patience
Envy/Kindness
Pride/Humility
|
|
Some really good suggestions, all. Wierdo, thanks to you especially for all the definition improvements. I do realize now that my virtues don't match up with the traditional catholic set - I actually took mine from the appendix in the Rise of the Runelords anniversary edition. I'll need to decide which list to use, obviously.
I've got plenty to work on, but busy with work at the moment. I'll see what I can do with all this though.