This is pure theory at this point, but I'm thinking of doing it in future games. As has been stated in other threads, I dislike the current alignment system. I think it is too restrictive, and honestly, who ever thinks of themselves as evil. So here is my proposal:
The alignment system will stay largely the same, but the names change. The new axises (axi?) will be Selfless/Selfish and Methodical/Chaotic. I think simply changing the terms makes a world of difference. I would relax the Paladins restriction from Lawful Good to simply Selfless.
My tweak to the alignment system is that most mortal creatures, even killers, pirates, and orcs, are neutral. To qualify for a non-neutral alignment you have to be extraordinarily dedicated to an ideal, like a paladin or cleric, or else an aligned supernatural creature, like fey (chaotic), undead, or an outsider (with exceptions).
I like the alignments. I don't find them too restrictive(except for the anti-paladin), as I consider most actions to fall into multiple catagories.
But I agree with Exle that the vast majority of people are neutral, but I may consider it easier to achieve/be good or evil alignment.
----
I'm not sure what you mean by methodical. What are some methodical actions to you? to me methodical means following steps without skipping any.
Rather than Chaotic, you could consider Impulsive or Intuitive(my favorite) as the opposite of Methodical.
Selfless/Selfish, to me, doesn't say much about actions or principles: many selfish people are very offended by the suffering of others, and would never approve, condone of or participate in such actions. But their concerns are not acted upon.
On the other hand, Selfless people might do terrible evil to protect others, or to save them from doing evil.
This will indeed unrestrict(may not be a real word) the good/evil axis, but to a point where the 'alignment' has no meaning towards actions or prediction of actions. Only the motivation of those actions and the individual's system of values.
I'm not sure what you mean by methodical. What are some methodical actions to you? to me methodical means following steps without skipping any.
That is one definition of methodical. What I mean is very careful about choosing their actions. They don't do things on a whim. They think about why they should do them before doing them. Perhaps Cautious would be a better term.
Quote:
Rather than Chaotic, you could consider Impulsive or Intuitive(my favorite) as the opposite of Methodical.
Definately think Impulsive works better. Thanks!
Quote:
Selfless/Selfish, to me, doesn't say much about actions or principles: many selfish people are very offended by the suffering of others, and would never approve, condone of or participate in such actions. But their concerns are not acted upon.
On the other hand, Selfless people might do terrible evil to protect others, or to save them from doing evil.
This will indeed unrestrict(may not be a real word) the good/evil axis, but to a point where the 'alignment' has no meaning towards actions or prediction of actions. Only the motivation of those actions and the individual's system of values.
This is exactly what I want. It does muddle things. It will make people think about their actions instead of casting detect evil and killing whoever dings as evil. Yes I'm aware that concealing alignment is fairly simple, but if who you thought was the bad guy dings as selfless, it makes you think. Then you want to find out why he's doing it instead of going right for your sword.
This is exactly what I want. It does muddle things. It will make people think about their actions instead of casting detect evil and killing whoever dings as evil. Yes I'm aware that concealing alignment is fairly simple, but if who you thought was the bad guy dings as selfless, it makes you think. Then you want to find out why he's doing it instead of going right for your sword.
Well in that case: Kudos to you, my good comrade.
In my games it's equally easy to create a false positive for detect spells :)
and killing somebody because they ding as evil without at least trying to help them be good. Well, that's just mindlessly bloating the hordes of The Abyss(or Abaddon or Hell) for The Final Battle.
EDIT: I still prefer Intuitive; Impulsive has a negative sound to it, sort of 'wreckless'.
I still prefer Intuitive; Impulsive has a negative sound to it, sort of 'wreckless'.
Intuitive to me implies "ease of use," like an intuitive control interface. Impulsive is merely a character trait. I'd use spontaneous, but that already has an in-game meaning.
the real problem of alignment, is that many people have very strict ideas of what qualifies for an alignment, and get upset to see someone playing a character who doesn't fit their definition.
palladium has a much clearer alignment system, because they list a behavior code next to each alignment and give examples.
really, alignment causes way too many metagame problems. i once tried to play a LE rogue in 3.0, and got crap about it from day one because of the paladin in the party. when i tried to genocide the goblins in sunless citadel, i was stopped because we would get zero xp for the adventure if i did. later, the GM forced my character to LN because he didnt see me do anything eveil in the game- big surprise, with a paladin on one side and GM fiat on the other. the concept i wanted to play was more of a genocidal racist elf, removing the inferior races. it was a different take on what adventurers do all the time in most games. what i got was a character who kept getting death threats from the other elf in the group. never mind that the necromancer did more evil in-game (like fireballing the civilians i was rescuing from a orc prison). overall it was a problem with the GM i think.
in another game, my paladin fell. i was never told why- this was 3.0, but the GM apparently was trying to enforce the 2e code with poor communication. after multiple levels of not being able to atone, i simply made a different character. she later kicked me out of the group (again not telling me why), and then used my old paladin as a villain. the issue here was entirely on the GM side, as she was very much an adversarial killer GM. her main complaint was that she didnt like my play style, calling it too 'video-gamey'. more that my simulist approach didnt mach with her narrative style.
really, every time ive played lawful, someone has given me crap over it. just not over the lawful part. its weird really.
the real problem of alignment, is that many people have very strict ideas of what qualifies for an alignment, and get upset to see someone playing a character who doesn't fit their definition.
palladium has a much clearer alignment system, because they list a behavior code next to each alignment and give examples.
really, alignment causes way too many metagame problems. i once tried to play a LE rogue in 3.0, and got crap about it from day one because of the paladin in the party. when i tried to genocide the goblins in sunless citadel, i was stopped because we would get zero xp for the adventure if i did. later, the GM forced my character to LN because he didnt see me do anything eveil in the game- big surprise, with a paladin on one side and GM fiat on the other. the concept i wanted to play was more of a genocidal racist elf, removing the inferior races. it was a different take on what adventurers do all the time in most games. what i got was a character who kept getting death threats from the other elf in the group. never mind that the necromancer did more evil in-game (like fireballing the civilians i was rescuing from a orc prison). overall it was a problem with the GM i think.
in another game, my paladin fell. i was never told why- this was 3.0, but the GM apparently was trying to enforce the 2e code with poor communication. after multiple levels of not being able to atone, i simply made a different character. she later kicked me out of the group (again not telling me why), and then used my old paladin as a villain. the issue here was entirely on the GM side, as she was very much an adversarial killer GM. her main complaint was that she didnt like my play style, calling it too 'video-gamey'. more that my simulist approach didnt mach with her narrative style.
really, every time ive played lawful, someone has given me crap over it. just not over the lawful part. its weird really.
Definitely sounds like you've had some GM problems. I think the Selfless/Selfish/Cautious/Impulsive system I'm proposing makes it a lot easier to define a character. A real person can't define themselves in terms of good/evil, because what qualifies as a good or evil act varies from person to person. Lawful and chaotic are a little more clear, but still somewhat problematic. Most people should be able to tell you if they are cautious or impulsive though. And I think most people could tell you if they are selfish or not, though I doubt there'd be many who would admit that they are. But they will be willing to say, "Yeah, my rogue is a selfish jerk." I think many more characters will wind up falling into neutral territory this way, which is really what most people should be.
One of the biggest problems with the alignment system is that it presents itself as a choice between 9 alignments to represent the "full gamut" of a character's intentions, motivations, and moral/ethical standings; but it really only gives 5 realistic options to a player; LG, LN, NG, TN, CG if you're playing a "Heroic" campaign or CE, CN, NE, TN, LE if an "Evil" campaign. You can choose other options, but that often results in either poor roleplaying (Oh, he's CE but he works fine in our heroic group), adversarial roleplaying (player vs player), or metagaming (My character just doesn't trust theirs because I know he's evil). It's almost like there's a 3D Box, 3 units to the side, that represents the 9 familiar alignment combos on 3 layers with a third axis of Heroic, Neutral, Villainous and what we're actually working with is a "slanted" plane that entirely leaves out possibilities of heroic evil alignments and villainous good alignments (several examples of each exist in storytelling). And that's not even going into the concept of Blue/Orange morality.
Here's what I've come up with:
First, replace the Good-Neutral-Evil axis with Cooperative-Independent-Competitive.
Spoiler:
Cooperative - Works best when working with others and feels that the best products are those that are shared and benefit many people. This moral value believes that both success and failure are shared by all involved.
Independent - Works best solo and feels that each person is, for the most part, responsible for their own well-being. Believes that each person will rise or fall on their own and this doesn't largely affect others.
Competitive - Works best with others to compete with and feels that success for one person cannot exist without loss for another. Believes that there's only so much to go around so and there must be both winners and losers in the great scheme of things.
Next, replace the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis with Conservative-Liberal-Radical.
Spoiler:
Conservative - Conservatives believe in the value of experience, heritage, and "tried and true" methods. Prefers not to take risks if there's a more reliable option available and more likely to take time to think things through. However, can be "stuck in the past" and become morally stagnant, adhering to age-old traditions even though they've become out-dated.
Liberal - Liberals believe that traditions and heritage aren't ideals to be protected but rather tools that protect us. So long as the tradition continues to be useful, it will be held to, but a liberal is always ready to put it to rest when something better comes along.
Radical - Radicals believe that traditions and heritage just hold us back and delay innovation and progress. Will actively fight against "traditional" ways even if no better alternative exists because the lack of a "safety line" will encourage the better alternative to be developed that much quicker.
Lastly, we have the Heroic-Common-Villainous axis, a third dimension to delineate the people the universe is rooting for and those who are only guided to power for the heroes to have someone to bring down. PCs will almost always be Heroic, though sometimes Commoners will accomplish heroic deeds in spite of what the Universe wants; see Anti-Heroes in the Hero Points optional rules section. By contrast, Villains are the ones who exist for Heroes to rise up against and bring down. They are the ones that the story expects to lose in the end, no matter how good their motives or intentions. Again, you'll sometimes have Commoners in a villainous position such as the Sheriff/Magistrate who's "just doing his job" on account of never having gotten the "these guys are the last hope for the world" memo. Then, you've got just the normal Commoners... your townsfolk, shopkeepers, cohorts, etc; again, they can have any of the "big 9" combos of morality/ethics, but they're mostly just bystanders in the great conflict between Heroes and Villains.
So, among Heroes, we have the following options:
Spoiler:
Conservative-Cooperative - These types value tradition as something to be defended and teamwork as something to strive for. Work with others, share the bounty among all and overcome the strife as a group. Moreover, there are clear delineations of how to do this; a strong hierarchy is important for order and successful operation. The leader leads, typically by example, and the rest do their assigned jobs for the betterment of all. The subordinates trust their superiors and the superiors value and respect the work of their subordinates. To slack in your job or abuse a high position is unthinkable.
Conservative-Independent - These types value tradition and feel it's up to each person to uphold it. Will teach those willing to learn, but it's ultimately up to them to learn the lessons. Some will fail; that's inevitable. But these types always try to promote wisdom and believe strong traditions are important for there to be as much stability and as few ignorant as possible.
Conservative-Competitive - These types value tradition, especially traditions concerning competition. History is full of winners and losers and there's always going to be limited resources and opportunities. Life is like an intricate game with many rules and those who learn the rules and play the game best will "win" for lack of a better term. Of course, there's no shame in losing, but competition keeps people motivated and keeps society going.
Liberal-Cooperative - These types value the best way to do things that benefits all involved. Sometimes, that's a pre-established method, which is all good and well. Other times, a new, better method needs to be developed and, when it is considered, this type considers how it will benefit all and how to minimize negative effects for all as well.
Liberal-Independent - These types are very self-driven, picking methods that work and always looking out for better ways to let them go further. While their plans sometimes fail and others may be inconvenienced by it at times, those same people will benefit much more from the successes if they have the presence of mind to pay attention. While not strictly innovating for the direct benefit of others, these types are often very gratified when others see value in what they do and benefit from the successes while tolerating the failures.
Liberal-Competitive - These types do what works and, even better, try to do it better than someone else. Competition drives the world forward and if there's a better way to be had, try to find it first and stamp your name on it so everyone who benefits from it will know it was your hard work that brought it to them. In the mean time, they'll make the best of existing methods and also try to become the best at those while they're around.
Radical-Cooperative - These types strongly believe that, so long as people stick together, they can overcome any adversity. Traditions, restrictions, and heritage just hold us back and should be entirely abandoned in favor of continuous progress. All the while, they support and back up their fellow man; it's a risky business eschewing stability so those who are better able have that much more obligation to try harder and sacrifice for the betterment of the whole unit.
Radical-Independent - Nothing is sacred in the name of progress. these types see everyone as climbing a mountain and they, themselves, will blaze the trail, leaving behind everything and everyone in the pursuit of bigger and better things. Of course, they won't purposefully or maliciously hinder the progress of others, but they don't particularly pay much heed to whether those behind them are benefiting from their trail or stumbling over it; each person is responsible for his own progress after all.
Radical-Competitive - Life's a freestyle competition; no rules, no limits. Always be on the lookout for bigger and better things and never let yourself be held back for anything. Get to the top of the mountain and proclaim yourself the best there is, then use the vantage point to find a bigger mountain. Most of all, find others to compete against, adversaries to best and give that much more incentive to be better, faster, and stronger. If you defeat them, tell them to come back stronger next time and really give you a run for your money.
Among Commoners:
Spoiler:
Conservative-Cooperative - Everyone has a job to do and a place to be. Community is important and we all strive to do our best. Respect your betters.
Conservative-Independent - Do your best. Things that work don't need fixing.
Conservative-Competitive - The best of us succeed. Follow the rules and you're sure to be a winner.
Liberal-Cooperative - Everyone works together and does what needs to be done, whether that's something traditional or a new thing.
Liberal-Independent - Always try to be better than the person you were yesterday.
Liberal-Competitive - Don't settle for second best.
Radical-Cooperative - We can all do better, so lets do it; forget the past and everyone work towards the future.
Radical-Independent - Do best by yourself and never hold back.
Radical-Competitive - Win, always. No excuses.
Lastly, among Villains:
Spoiler:
Conservative-Cooperative - The world would be a better place for everyone if everyone were put in their place. I know the best for everyone so I will do the best for everyone no matter what.
Conservative-Independent - I know best how things should be done and no one should argue with me; they don't know any better.
Conservative-Competitive - I strive to be at the very top of the social order; it's what I deserve.
Liberal-Cooperative - Sometimes, you need to break some rules for everyone's benefit. Those who aren't part of the solution are part of the problem and I'm a problem solver.
Liberal-Independent - Progress is important and those who would stand in my way will be "dealt with".
Liberal-Competitive - It's only illegal if you get caught. Otherwise, it's a legitimate strategy.
Radical-Cooperative - We need no rules to tell us how to live, so down with the rules.
Radical-Independent - Rules are for people who can't handle the real world and I, for one, won't be fettered by them.
Radical-Competitive - I'd kill you given half the chance if you get in my way... and I so hope you get in my way.
Lastly, I'll address Blue-Orange morality:
Spoiler:
This is more of an abstract subject, dealing with groups or individuals who's morality is judged on an entirely different basis than what we're used to. It's a completely different cube than what I described above... and it may even be a circle, tetrahedron, Klein Bottle, etc. An example of this would be a race of beings that views killing for any means, even self defense, as reprehensible except for killing as part of a structured, competitive tournament in which leaving a defeated opponent alive is viewed in the same way we would view rape or child molestation. This is a completely different moral structure typically assigned to "higher-dimension" beings such as gods (especially "elder gods") or super-smart but emotionless robots, but could also extend to people who develop a personal blue-orange scale (Nietzsche's Ubermench) such as The Joker, the Mushi from Mushi-shi, or Kimblee from Fullmetal Alchemist.
One of the biggest problems with the alignment system is that it presents itself as a choice between 9 alignments to represent the "full gamut" of a character's intentions, motivations, and moral/ethical standings; but it really only gives 5 realistic options to a player; LG, LN, NG, TN, CG if you're playing a "Heroic" campaign or CE, CN, NE, TN, LE if an "Evil" campaign. You can choose other options, but that often results in either poor roleplaying (Oh, he's CE but he works fine in our heroic group), adversarial roleplaying (player vs player), or metagaming (My character just doesn't trust theirs because I know he's evil). It's almost like there's a 3D Box, 3 units to the side, that represents the 9 familiar alignment combos on 3 layers with a third axis of Heroic, Neutral, Villainous and what we're actually working with is a "slanted" plane that entirely leaves out possibilities of heroic evil alignments and villainous good alignments (several examples of each exist in storytelling). And that's not even going into the concept of Blue/Orange morality.
Here's what I've come up with:
First, replace the Good-Neutral-Evil axis with Cooperative-Independent-Competitive.
** spoiler omitted **
Next, replace the...
You, sir, are a genius. This is by far the best alignment system I have ever heard of. It is complex without being complicated, and realistic. I just wonder, how would alignment based mechanics would interact with this system?
You, sir, are a genius. This is by far the best alignment system I have ever heard of. It is complex without being complicated, and realistic. I just wonder, how would alignment based mechanics would interact with this system?
Well, one of the biggest things is that the Hero Point system would only work for characters that are Heroic on the H-C-V scale. Anti-heroes are, essentially, Commoners with a bonus feat so if you're playing a Paladin (which would obviously be limited at least to the Heroic scale), you must choose Hero points and cannot be an "anti-hero Paladin" (if you use that system, as it is optional). Beyond that, you could say that Paladins cannot be Radical; they must hold tradition in at least some regard either by being Conservative (strongly for tradition) or Liberal (Mostly for tradition). This mirrors the Barbarian "original" motif of being allowed Chaotic or Neutral, but not Lawful. Also, Smite Evil would be changed such that it does bonus damage against Villainous enemies (so it would work against the anchors and big bads, but not against mundane mooks and mercenaries or maybe in just a lesser capacity). In the new system, I don't see a problem with having a Conservative Barbarian since there are plenty of examples of tribal heritage and tradition even in the stereotypical Barbarian image. Superstition and Totem Powers would fall under this so there may be alignment-based limits on what Rage powers you can take; some will require you be non-Conservative and others will require you to be non-Radical or maybe even hard Conservative. Same goes for Monks, some Monk abilities will be limited to non-Radical alignment, but not all Monks would be hard Conservative. Cavaliers/Samurai may be required to be non-Radical, though the Ronin order may either allow you to be Radical or, alternatively, prohibit Conservative. By contrast, Rogues/Ninjas may be required to be non-Conservative. In this new system, "true neutrality" becomes a Liberal Independent Commoner and if Druids are only allowed "one step", their only "heroic" option is Liberal Independent Heroic, though they have all the "standard" 5 options of the original 2-D alignment system in the Commoner stratta (likely being anti-heroes). So you couldn't have, for example, a Conservative Independent Heroic Druid because that's two steps away from the middle of the cube. The Assassin prestige class would be limited to non-heroic, obviously, so the most "heroic" assassin you could have would be an anti-hero Commoner. I'm not sure about Anti-Paladins, though. I don't want to strictly relegate them to Villains as Paladins are limited to Heroes, but having an anti-hero Anti-Paladin may even be "too much" and make falling as a Paladin not quite as undesirable if you can still Fall, become an anti-pally, and continue on your merry way. I'll address this matter later.
Deities will have a new dimension to their personality and some may shift as a result. For example, Ragathiel is, currently, LG because he's a Celestial Empyreal lord, but he also represents the Destruction domain and is very battle-driven because of his fiendish heritage to destroy the evil forces. So, while he's most certainly Heroic in my system, he likely wouldn't be Conservative Cooperative but rather some form of Competitive, most likely Liberal Competitive; he "breaks the mold", showing that fiendish heritage doesn't tether you to fiendish behavior and uses that heritage, rather, as a tool to fuel his fight for a better cause and he is very "driven to win" against his villainous foes. So as a Lib-Comp-Hero, he can take on heroic followers any competitive slant or liberal-independents (focusing more on self-redemption than competing against foes). Conservative-Independents can't focus so much on self redemption and, in overly valuing traditions, would more likely succumb to base rage and hatred while Radical-Independents would likely go "too far" because they have no strong moral anchor like defeat of a foe for Rad-Comps and "self redemption" will quickly become "self-reformation" as they move too far away from what Ragathiel represents; they'd abandon the fight altogether. If you're not heroic, then the only option for a mere Commoner (albeit, likely an anti-heroic one) is a Lib-Comp because they can't let anything distract them from that because they're already one step away by not being "favored by the universe" and needing to rely on their own strength and abilities more than anything else. Some other gods will be neither Heroic nor Villainous; neutral gods like Pharasma would have only one Heroic and mirroring Villainous option for followers while Commoners (and anti-heroes) will have more options.
Lastly, are the inherent bonuses and penalties for each outlook. I've always felt that the Alignment system, especially along the lines of "good" and "evil" (now more closely related to Heroic vs Villainy) was sort of "in a vacuum" when not directly being used for class prereqs and religious purposes. A CE Bard is, in practice, no different from a LG Bard except for very subjective roleplaying elements. I feel that Alignment should have more "impact" on a character. Thus, I propose the following bonuses and penalties:
Spoiler:
Heroes: +4 to Attack Rolls and Saves, -1 to Damage Rolls and spell DC (-2 if an area effect)
Heroes are more focused in their power and try not to let it "run amok". Heroic warriors will focus their strikes into clean, though less damaging hits and heroic magic users will restrain their powerful magics, especially those that affect an area, so as not to needlessly hurt innocent bystanders. They are also more stable in mind and body and favored by the universe so Saves are enhanced.
Villains: +1 to Damage Rolls and +1 to Spell DCs (+2 if an area effect), -2 to Attack Rolls and Saves
Villains will cut loose and largely don't care who gets hurt so long as their goals are realized. But, in such wild slinging of power, their accuracy suffers. Their instability, along with a destiny towards ultimate failure, means that they are more vulnerable to effects demanding saves.
Conservative: +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Profession checks as well as well as Knowledge of History, Nobility, and Religion and their Class Skill bonus goes from +3 to +4. You gain +2 to your Leadership level when using the Leadership feat. You take -2 penalty to untrained skills. Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Bluff, and Use Magic Device take an additional -2 penalty and are not considered class skills even if your class offers them as such (doesn't affect feats and traits that "always consider" a particular skill to be a class skill).
Some class abilities heavily associated with hierarchy and tradition may require this alignment. Others associated with abandonment of hierarchy and tradition may not be used under this alignment.
Conservative types value hierarchy, tradition, and professionalism so they gain Knowledge bonuses pertaining to conservative values (History, Nobility, and Religion) and know how to be professional and establish rapport with others. They also do better with any skills they've received formal training in, though for skills they haven't focused on, they tend not to trust themselves in the task, preferring to leave it to trained, accredited professionals. There are some skills they will even eschew completely, even if their formal training otherwise addresses it. When leading others, they are able to better organize rank and file and can manage followers better than those less respecting of hierarchy and social order.
Liberal: No bonuses or penalties
Liberals are neither strictly beholden to tradition nor do they eschew what works in favor of what is new. As such, they play across the board and have no significant bonuses for focusing on one aspect nor penalties for neglect.
Radical: +2 bonus to Perception, Performance, Use Magic Device, and Bluff. Gains +1 in non-class skills and gains Class Bonus even to untrained class skills, but Class Bonus goes from +3 to +2 across the board. Knowledge of History, Nobility, and Religion are not considered class skills even if your class offers them as such (doesn't affect feat/trait class skill allowance). Gains Favored Class Bonus every odd character level regardless of what class level is actually taken (if able to pick 2 favored classes from Half-Elf racial trait or similar, they gain favored class bonus every character level)
Some class abilities heavily associated with abandonment of hierarchy and tradition may require this alignment. Others associated with hierarchy and tradition may not be used under this alignment.
Radical types are always on the lookout for new things and as such, they gain a bonus to perception. They also favor spectacular or "out-of-the-ordinary" ways in particular so they also gain bonuses on Performances and Use Magical Device. Lastly, holding no tradition or social order in regard, they have no problem using deception to their best advantage, thus the Bluff benefit. They even excel in skills not under their class umbrella and even the skills under their training they perform well even with nothing more than the bare basics; though these bare basics will have been neglected somewhat compared to non-radical types. They have no fondness for stuffy knowledge of History, Nobility, and and Religion and typically won't study it even if of a class that normally emphasizes those topics. Since they like to branch out and not stick to tradition, they naturally excel in picking up new classes with their favored bonus being tied to character level rather than class level, though this can be a detriment for those who focus on a single class.
Cooperative: Flanking bonus to attack increases from 2 to 3. If flanking pair are both Cooperative, each gets increase from 2 to 4 instead. An ally with a Teamwork Feat can treat you as having that same Teamwork feat, even if you don't. Beneficial morale or circumstance effects you apply to allies (must affect at least one ally other than yourself) increase by +2 numeric bonus or +1 round (you choose at time of applying effect, cannot select +2 if there is no numeric bonus involved). +2 bonus to Handle Animal and Ride checks. -1 penalty to Intimidate and any skill which is being employed solo (ie. without someone aiding aid-able skills or observing non-aid-able skills). If there is no ally within 100' and line of sight, you take -2 penalty on attack rolls and saves and -1 penalty on DCs.
Cooperative types rely on teamwork greatly and they will provide better beneficial effects for their allies. Knowing that you are reliable, teammates will be inspired to do better in the knowledge that you definitely have their back and will follow their example and guidance in performing teamwork feats you haven't rigorously trained with. You also do better with animals through sincere respect and viewing even an animal companion or mount as a loyal and dependable teammate; they respond better to your instructions as you treat them more like a friend and equal than a mere beast. You inspire greater morale and circumstantial benefit in allies, though you cannot benefit yourself alone, only if you're also benefiting a teammate. This reliance on cooperation, however, leaves you vulnerable if ever forced to work alone as you don't perform quite as well as you would knowing there is someone reliable to work with. You're also less apt at forcing your own way on others against their will you have a harder time intimidating others into compliance.
Independent: +2 bonus to Craft checks when performed alone (more than 30' from another character) and without distraction. +1 to all knowledge skills. +2 numeric bonus or +1 round duration to morale or circumstantial benefits that you place on yourself (allies may benefit from the effect, but do not gain the bonus). +2 to attack rolls and saves and +1 to DCs when no ally is within 15' of you (not counting a mount you are riding or your own animal companion). Flanking bonus is reduced by 1 except when flanking solo (as with Dimensional Savant) in which case it is increased by 1. -4 penalty to Sense Motive. -4 penalty to Handle Animal unless you are a Druid or have the Animal domain; if you are not a Druid or have the Animal domain, but you have an animal companion (ie. Ranger), you take the -4 penalty except when dealing with your own animal companion.
Independent types do their best work alone and undistributed. Being very self-reliant, they tend to do better when they know others aren't nearby to get in their way. However, because of their heavy self-focus, they tend not to relate as well with other people and do poorly in determining the real intentions of others as well as relating to animals they lack a personal bond with. They also aren't as willing to rely on others for flanking and won't trust their allies as much, resulting in a lower flanking bonus. They do well with self-motivation so morale and circumstantial benefits they provide themselves will be of greater benefit (they don't pay any heed to anyone else who may happen to also receive the benefit in the case of area effects).
Competitive: When flanking, your flanking bonus increases to +4 if you get the first attack after flanking position is established and the ally you flank with gains no flanking bonus. If you act second after flanking is established, you gain no flanking bonus. After this, flanking bonuses revert to normal. If both flankers are Competitive, the initial flanking bonus increases to +6 (the second to act still gets no bonus) and both flankers get +3 bonus after their initial turns. They get +2 to any skill checks if another character is making the same (or a comparable) check within 100' and in line of sight since your last turn (except for stealth, in which case you just need to know ahead of time that they intend to make such a check within 100' of you); for example, if a competitive character is making a Ride check and another character nearby and in sight is also making a Ride or Handle Animal for an animal they are riding, the competitive character gains +2 on their check. +3 bonus on directly opposed opposed skill or stat checks (ie. Bluff vs Sense Motive, Stealth vs Perception, Spellcraft to identify spell cast at you, etc). -4 penalty to Diplomacy and it is not considered a class skill if your class otherwise offers it. Competitive types do not qualify for teamwork feats (except through Inquisitor's Solo Tactics class ability or similar). Take -2 numeric penalty or -1 duration for any morale or circumstantial effects that affect you and at least one other character. If you are healed by another, you are healed for 2 fewer HP and/or gain 2 fewer temp HP. If there is no other character within 100' and line of sight, you take -4 to skill checks, stat checks, and saves.
Competitive types depend on having someone at hand to at least see them to motivate them to perform at their full potential and, when in direct competition with someone else, they will perform even better. Directly opposed skill and stat checks are their bread and butter and parallel competition (ie. who can ride better) is also beneficial to their abilities. But these types aren't much for cooperative social graces so they suffer in the natural give-and-take of diplomacy and will often "hog" benefit for themselves even when working with teammates. Teamwork Feats are typically anathema to competitive types.
Additionally, we have the optional Hero Points system (which I really, REALLY like for balancing gameplay, especially with disparate stat rolls, different skill levels, and to give the "heroes" an inherent edge). Heroic types, obviously, get Hero points while Commoners who are, none the less, adventuring will typically be Anti-Heroes (bonus feat, but no benefit from Hero points) or just plain commoners (don't earn Hero Points or a bonus feat but can still benefit if someone else uses Hero Points for your benefit). I also came up with the concept of "Villain Points" which a savvy GM can leverage to mechanically govern "fudge" rolls in favor of the heroes in general or the big bad "wasting" a turn by self-proclaiming his own victory and their imminent demise (since villains are typically very talky).
