Redefining Alignments

[Ragnarok Aeon]

While some people think that the alignment system is needs to be more defined, I think it's it's trying to be too much. It's true that it's vague enough to cause arguments and disagreement. Some people just ignore it (the right people can play entire campaigns without alignment coming up), some people remove it going as far as to change the mechanics (DR/Alignment, Paladins, Outsiders, Clerics, and Circle against Alignment), some people have sliding scale systems. Ignoring it is fine until certain monsters, spells, and classes come up. Removing it the simple way is just banning class abilities, spells, and outsiders, but can affect game balance. Sliding scale alignment is more work for players and the GM, but doesn't really solve the question of what is good/evil/chaotic/law/neutral.

However if you really look at the arguments, it's less about Good vs Evil, and more about Good vs Law and Chaotic vs Evil. What is Neutral really?

Alignments aren't well defined, but it's less a lack of substance and more a lack of theme. Everyday, the Paladin fights between Law and Good when taking down a lawful establishment of evil. The Sorcerer is uncertain whether they are Evil or Chaotic for being impulsive. The neutral druid takes to a stance of passiveness, not being involved; they feel they must commit acts of evil to balance out the acts of good they have done.

There is a compromise however that doesn't involve just removing the alignments. These are really just some broadly defined motives.

Virtue: Those of this alignment are compelled to help the weak and innocent. They feel they must protect those in need, sometimes risking their own lives. Angels and other celestial outsiders tend to be of this alignment. This replaces Good. Paladins have this alignment, but they lean towards Order.

Order: Those of this alignment yearn for civil order. They put maintaining an organized establishment above their own desires. That does not make them above using loopholes to obtain the most out of the law, as long as anarchy does not spread. This replaces Law.

Destruction: Those of this alignment have a need for destruction. They yearn for violence and rubble. They may allow others to build, so that they may have something to destroy. They usually kill for the sake of killing. This replaces Evil. Undead are usually of this alignment.

Pleasure: Those of this alignment just want to be pleasured. This is often at the cost of others. They usually can't stand another having authority over them. They do what they want, and so they are susceptible to greed and lust. This replaces the Chaotic alignment. Fey are usually associated with this alignment.

---

Neutrality: Not really an alignment, but more of a lack of one. Neutral characters are often just trying to survive. Most animals and humanoids are neutral. They may exhibit actions that embody the alignments but that doesn't mean it defines them.

Some characters are rarely defined by just one motive, they often leans towards something else. Even those that are neutral often leans towards something (often pleasure when it comes to humans). For example Paladins lean toward Order, Devils lean toward Order as well. Demons on the other hand would lean toward Pleasure. However there should be the defining alignment which takes over in time of question. I believe a Paladin should put being good over being orderly if it ever comes into question (after all they get detect evil not detect chaos). So if being orderly puts lives in danger they should go the path of the Virtuous. But they still should want to avoid anarchy and chaos if possible.

With this system most creatures should be neutral, but certain classes (Paladins and Clerics) and creatures (Outsiders) should keep the alignment. A couple of actions shouldn't affect your alignment. A couple of thieves should not ping as Evil; a devil or demon, or even an cleric who worships a god that is defined as bringing destruction. This should be regardless of levels.

Yes this still affects game balance, but not as much as completely removing alignment entirely. (I think a Paladin with Smite all is pretty silly, but that's my opinion)

In hindsight, this hardly makes much of a change other making the alignments defined more objectively.

[_Cobalt_]

So instead of a grid, more of a cross shape?

Interesting. It seems to have some inherent problems. First off, in the context of the game, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are more or less tangible values, as opposed to the real world. In fact, in the real world, chaos is the lack of order, evil the lack of good.

I, myself, see no issues with the current alignment system. However, feel free to change it as you wish for your home game. I feel like people who have disagreements on the alignment chart are a niche, and a major change to a system should not entertain a niche, but the majority.

Re-reading the above, my wording seems hostile. That's not my intent; it's just the later it gets, the meaner my words seem. :p I'm fully supportive of the development of this idea.

[Kazaan]

Most of the problems with the traditional D&D alignment system stems from the fact that, in the associated universes, factors like Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are tangible and real parts of the fabric of the multi-verse. They aren't some ephemeral values, they aren't subjective, they aren't matters of philosophy. They are the equivalent of having a glowing magic bottle filled with the innocence stolen from children; and it actually is a lump of glowing "stuff" that is a tangible representation of child innocence sucked from their very souls. In short, the factors of the D&D/Pathfinder alignment system are actual things rather than just philosophical topics. This is a terrible storytelling device and, like I said, the source of most problems with an alignment system.

The system you propose could very well be done with the current model; all it does is cut off the corners and each person only has a strong preference towards a single power; cutting off the possibility of strong preference on both axis. While this would solve some problems (most notably, the Law vs Good conundrum that plagues many Paladins), it still leaves that major problem of it being a matter of concrete alignment rather than abstract alignment. It also cuts off all four restricted alignments for Druids by the classic model so, to keep them in the original spirit of the class, they'd have to be strictly limited to Neutral Only (True Neutral in the classic model).

I prefer to look at alignment by this system:
Replacing the L-N-C axis with Conservative-Liberal-Radical. Conservatives prefer tradition and hierarchy. Radicals prefer the unexplored and untested. Liberals prefer what's practical.

Replacing the G-N-E axis with Cooperative-Independent-Competitive.
Cooperatives prefer to work along with others. Competitive prefer rivalry and competition. Independents avoid both interactions and prefer to work on their own.

These replacements take a lot of the relativity out of the equation and also avoid crystallizing ephemeral concepts like "morality" and "ethics" into tangible qualities. Bandits can cooperate to raid a village by assigning jobs and tasks to each member for mutual support, they can compete by racing to see who can steal the most stuff in the end, or they can work independently where each one just sees how much they, personally, can loot. Likewise, the village can, in response, cooperate to set up traps and defenses, compete to see who can kill the most bandits, or work independently and worry about just protecting themselves as best they can. Moral qualities are not something to be systematized and crystallized; at least not in good storytelling.