Disclaimer: This is a variant rule system taking from the material presented in Ultimate Campaigns sections on Character Background and Alignments. In my own games I often find myself in a bind when it comes to the behavior of my players. There are certain actions that my players will take and almost always when they do, we get into an argument about alignment, alignment changes, and how they affect a character's development and even access to powers in the case of clerics and paladins whose weight and impact can really show some significance. In an effort to shorten the amount of time wasted at the table literally arguing semantics I have adopted the Conflict System from the background generator of UCamp and I have expanded on it to show how much different types of actions can and do affect alignment changes, and in what way.
If you have read the section and mechanics on Alignments in the Ultimate Campaign Rulebook, you can skip this paragraph and move to the next one. For those who have not read the section on alignments, there are two axes: one that represents Law and Chaos and one that represents Good and Evil. On a nine point scale, each alignment has a range that they fall within of three numbers on a number line. The lower numbers representing Good and Law with the higher numbers representing Evil and Chaos. The conflict system has the player roll a d20, d12, or d4 to determine the type of conflict one has had in the past and how it affects their alignment prior to playing in game. Once you get to the alignment section, such actions and their weight on a PC's alignment are not mentioned again.
This system has the same list of conflicts from UCamp, but disambiguated to show which axis any particular conflict falls on, and includes a second list of conflicts which shows antithetical actions to the original conflicts. PC's in evil campaigns, or evil NPC's who want to have richer backgrounds can use from this table to show a more complex and truly conflicted character.
This system is meant to be used in game to allow players and DMs to have a baseline rules set on the most basic level of actions taken that may in one way or another affect a player's alignment. They are here to help the game go more quickly and with less hassle when determining the significance of particular actions. Most of these actions are meant to be seen in game as actions that have significance in game play. Actions that really do not affect the character's life, such as not leaving a tip, or big enough tip at a tavern really aren't that offensive of alignment affecting, nor is leaving a very handsome tip a rewarding action. When applying these changes to alignment, it is important to know when it is time to judge the characters, because a constantly changing alignment could prove to be problematic for players not only because they are constantly being judged, but also because classes exist which may require the maintenance of a particular alignment and an ever fluctuating system punishes those players rather than rewards them for their character choice, and imposing such a rule set on them is generally considered bad form. As a general rule, alignment judgments should be applied whenever the party gains experience, and the DM and players can compare and contrast the actions taken leading up to this point of the game adding and subtracting the values of the actions to determine the net change in alignment (if any). Of course, the DM is the final arbiter of this system and can make judgments as they see fit on how much a particular action may affect an alignment change or if it would even affect an alignment change at all. Some actions change alignments differently based on context. Such actions usually involve influence with another character, be it receiving or giving, and can be subject to change based on the alignments being interacted with.
CHAOTIC & EVIL CONFLICTS
1 (1) Minor Failure (Evil): You failed a friend, family member, or loved one who depended on you to fulfill an important task.
2 (1) Petty Crime (Chaotic): You committed a minor crime, like vandalism, trespassing, or mischief.
3 (1) Told a Lie (Chaotic): You deliberately made someone believe something that was not true to further your own goals.
4 (1) Broke a Promise (Evil): You swore an oath or vow that was important to someone else, but you did not keep your promise.
5 (2) Humiliation (Evil): You publicly humiliated or scandalized someone with either true or slanderous information.
6 (2) Negligence (Evil): You caused someone else to suffer by your own inaction, disregard, or excessive recklessness.
7 (2) Minor Theft (Chaotic): You stole several small or inexpensive items that belonged to someone else.
8 (2) Seducer (Evil): You tempted or manipulated someone to act in accordance with your whim, careless of whether it was in their own best interests.
9 (3) Cheater (Chaotic): You broke a rule, law, contract, or agreement for your own gain.
10 (4) Betrayal (Evil): You betrayed someone who trusted you.
11 (4) Malign Associates (Chaotic/Evil): You allied with a destructive creature, organization, or individual.
12 (5) Destroyed a Reputation (Evil): You deliberately ruined the honor, reputation, or fortunes of another individual or group.
13 (5) Major Theft (Chaotic): You stole expensive items.
14 (6) Corrupted an Innocent (Chaotic/Evil): You counseled an otherwise innocent person who trusted you, toward adverse choices.
15 (6) Blackmailed (Chaotic): You used sensitive knowledge or threats to force someone’s cooperation.
16 (6) Destruction (Evil): You destroyed someone else’s property.
17 (6) Armed Robbery (Chaotic): You robbed someone with the threat of violence.
18 (7) Violence (Chaotic 3 Evil 4): You beat, assaulted, or mutilated someone.
19 (8) Murder (Evil): You killed someone without just or good cause.
20 (12) Mass Murder (Evil): You killed several sentient beings without just or good cause.
LAWFUL & GOOD CONFLICTS
1 (1) Minor Success (Good): You succeeded for a friend, family member, or loved one who depended on you to fulfill an important task.
2 (1) Prevented Crime (Lawful): You stopped a minor crime, like vandalism, trespassing, or mischief.
3 (1) Told the Truth (Lawful): You made someone believe something that was true whether or not it would further your own goals.
4 (1) Kept a Promise (Good): You swore an oath or vow that was important to someone else, and you kept your promise.
5 (2) Redemption (Good): You publicly redeemed or promoted someone with true information.
6 (2) Providence (Good): You prevented someone else's suffering by taking action, showing compassion, or being overly cautious of their situation.
7 (2) Prevented Theft (Lawful): You prevented the theft of or returned to their rightful owner small or inexpensive items that belonged to someone else.
8 (2) Partnership (Good): You teamed up someone to act in accordance with your needs, and made sure that it was in their own best interests.
9 (3) Compliance (Lawful): You complied with a rule, law, contract, or agreement even if it prevented your own gain.
10 (4) Amends (Good): You regained the trust of someone you betrayed, or gained the trust of someone who had a legitimate reason not to trust you.
11 (4) Benevolent Associates (Lawful/Good): You allied with a constructive creature, organization, or individual.
12 (5) Restored a Reputation (Good): You helped restore the honor, reputation, or fortunes of another individual or group.
13 (5) Prevented Larceny (Lawful): You prevented the theft of or returned to their rightful owner expensive items.
14 (6) Purified an Innocent (Lawful/Good): You counseled an otherwise innocent person toward positive choices.
15 (6) Adjudicate (Lawful): You used true, sensible, and logical information to gain someone’s cooperation who otherwise would not cooperate.
16 (6) Tangible Reparation (Good): You repaired someone else’s property that was damaged.
17 (6) Prevented Robbery (Lawful): You prevented someone from being robbed with the threat of violence.
18 (7) Prevented Violence (Lawful 3 Good 4): You stopped the beating, assault, or mutilation of someone.
19 (8) Restoration (Good): You helped restore the life and stability of someone who was either murdered or had their life ruined.
20 (12) Mass Restoration (Good): You helped restore the lives and stability of several who were either murdered or had their lives ruined.
Finally, some examples taken in game as to how I used this system and how it ultimately helped us to really get to ignore the weight of any particular action's significance while playing.
First Example: A neutral cleric creates an undead zombie out of a slain dragon's corpse and uses it in combat. The act of creating the undead can be seen as some form of destruction or taboo, which itself is worth six points in the direction of evil. Allying with it, as it is most certainly evil (at least in a Golarion setting, as in most games any created undead is usually considered to be evil), would be worth another four points towards evil on the scale. Arguably, using this evil creature to do a good act, such as defeating a monster, and restoring order to a community. Doing such is a good act and is worth five points back on the good scale. By the time experience is handed out, this player, while ultimately using his actions towards a greater goal may not have his means justified by the end as his alignment is still shifted five steps towards evil and thus changing his alignment after judging his alignment.
Second Example: A chaotic good barbarian has successfully slain a group of enemies. Once combat has ended he proceeds to use the dead bodies as puppets and mocks his former enemies. While highly disturbing, and very likely to get on the nerves of any DM which would provoke a very harsh change in alignment, such an act is merely chaotic in nature, and is only worth one step. Vandalism and mischief does not make one truly malicious, and the player's alignment does not change at all when he gains experience.
Naturally any group will have to define for themselves what each of these conflicts mean and how they affect their game. I encourage comments, retort, expansion, and usage of these variant rules and any others that may be developed of the course of this thread.
I find this interesting but I would only apply it to good vs evil. Law and chaos are subconcious methods to acheiving ones goals, thus is not really a choice for the character.
Also good and evil need a better definition or perhaps a different definition for different religions/cultures. There is one fantasy setting where being turned into undead to protect the family estate is an honor and is not evil. Cultural differences like this should be allowable.
I find this interesting but I would only apply it to good vs evil. Law and chaos are subconcious methods to acheiving ones goals, thus is not really a choice for the character.
Also good and evil need a better definition or perhaps a different definition for different religions/cultures. There is one fantasy setting where being turned into undead to protect the family estate is an honor and is not evil. Cultural differences like this should be allowable.
Naturally the DM has final say and beforehand such things should be established.
There should be allowances made for different species.
Like, say you make a Lawful Good human mad, and he mauls you and eats you. He'd no doubt be looking at an alignment change unless it were an extreme circumstance. A Lawful Good lion, however, would have a lot more leeway in terms of what's allowed and what isn't.
I haven't slept yet, I don't know if that's making any sense.
There should be allowances made for different species.
Like, say you make a Lawful Good human mad, and he mauls you and eats you. He'd no doubt be looking at an alignment change unless it were an extreme circumstance. A Lawful Good lion, however, would have a lot more leeway in terms of what's allowed and what isn't.
I haven't slept yet, I don't know if that's making any sense.
I don't think race has anything to do with it. It isn't lawful that the lion kills and eats his attacker.
Different cultures have different alignments, and changing what you define as lawful is the worst thing you can do for an alignment system. For example: a kingdom ruled by a monarch would most likely be a Lawful society; duty bound, honor driven, and with much respect to nobility and blood; whereas a democratic society is more chaotic in nature, as the rules are subject to change based on a voting system, rather than being enforced by law. Moving the goal post because of linguistic semantics will kill any legitimate attempt at actually maintaining an alignment system in game. Like I said, this is an expansion of what is presented in UCamp.
It is lion law. My point is, not every species and race should held to the human alignment standard.
It is lion law. My point is, not every species and race should held to the human alignment standard.
I think the list in UCamp does a very good job of not being too specific as far as culture goes.
Lying is bad, stealing is bad, hurting is bad, killing is bad, that's basically it.
Again you are moving the goal post and changing what lawful is to suit your own purposes. If you are really going to argue that lion law, or laws of any other culture make their rules different then you are missing the point entirely. This kind of discussion is exactly why I came up with this rule set in the first place.
Maybe I am. I feel that certain, different species and races should have different standards in terms of morality. That's just me, man.
Maybe I am. I feel that certain, different species and races should have different standards in terms of morality. That's just me, man.
If it is to be subjective, then it by definition cannot be law. Morality has to do with good and evil, and any creature that you feel should have their rules changed so they can maintain a good alignment while having evil behavior, is just not a good creature to begin with. That's why we have the alignment system and why certain creature types are considered to be neutral or evil typically.
Morality has to do with good and evil, and any creature that you feel should have their rules changed so they can maintain a good alignment while having evil behavior, is just not a good creature to begin with.
Right, by our human definitions of good and evil. Who's to say that definition is valid, or was wanted, or needed in the world? Who's to say that the lion's definition of good and evil wasn't doing just fine before we showed up? Or the Gnoll's? Or whatever's?
Who's to say that definition is valid.
In this very particular case, the Alignment chapter of Ultimate Campaign is to whom I refer when validating alignment.
It's subjectivity is a non issue when you accept it as a doctrine for determining game mechanics, rather than role playing semantics, which is why this system needed to exist at all.
Why are game mechanics better than role playing semantics when it comes to alignment?
Why are game mechanics better than role playing semantics when it comes to alignment?
Because the players and the DM have something to refer to in print that is not subject to change, giving a very good baseline on what actions are significant and how significant they are.
The game is also defined by mechanics, without them you really aren't playing DnD/PFRPG.
I disagree with that.
I disagree with that.
Disagree all you want, but when your players start getting mad at you for changing the rules on them about how alignment works it stops being fun.
Have your players gotten mad at you for doing this?
Have your players gotten mad at you for doing this?
Doing this? You mean implementing this system, or arguing about alignment because they want to justify that killing people for fun is not evil because they are a lion?
I meant for the thing you said, changing the rules on them about alignment.
Oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. I get it now.
Why is the lion in my above example killing people for fun? That's not what happened in the example.
I meant for the thing you said, changing the rules on them about alignment.
Oh, wait, that isn't what you meant. I get it now.
Why is the lion in my above example killing people for fun? That's not what happened in the example.
Because it's a game and you are having fun playing the character killing people, otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to have me (your hypothetical DM) allow you to do as you please and have it not affect your alignment.
What I am saying is the alignment system itself finally has some concrete rules to apply in game for cases where alignment matters.
If you change what defines the alignment itself, then you are really screwing with the game. Hence so many damn paladin threads. The whole point of this chapter of the book, and of me writing this thread is for there to be common ground on what types of actions affect alignment and by how much.
Why are you assuming my motives for a character acting as a predator would?
Let's honestly look at this specific example. It's an Awakened Lion. Level 2, or level 8, or whatever. We'll say he's a Ranger or something, or even just a standard Fighter. Lawful Good, always donates his gold to charity, plays with the children and doesn't eat or touch them weird, he even gets his meat from the butcher honestly. He's a paragon of Good Guy.
Now, let's have a Commoner walk up, and just start punching my LG Lion in the face. He's not doing much damage with his little fists, but it's hitting Lion in the nose and causing him pain. He's asking the Commoner to stop, but the Commoner isn't stopping, he just keeps wailing on Lion.
Eventually, Lion is going to snap. He might have morals, he might honestly believe in them, but this is a predator. Eventually, that Commoner is going to get mauled, and likely Lion's friends will have to stop him before Lion does what lions do. It isn't because he's Evil, it isn't because he's Chaotic, it's because at the end of the day, he is put together differently than a human. He comes from a different world, and he's got instincts and reflexes that go well beyond 'difficult' to control.
Now, I know that this is a very extreme, and admittedly stupid example. I mean, I know you as DM wouldn't have a random Commoner with a brain tumor attack my character for zero reason. But it helps my point, which is: Not every race or species are put together like a human. And holding every man, woman, child, Halfling, Orc, dragon, demon and angel to the exact same alignment grid, with the exact same behaviors being 'good' or 'evil' or 'chaotic' or 'lawful' for each of them, that's something that drives me crazy.
That's all I'm saying.
Because what this game needs is another set of rules.
How about Paizo put Ultimate Alignment on the release schedule?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to know why people keep associating laws (as in a legal system) with lawful.
I don't have the campaign splat so perhaps it redefines things, but I am going off of what is stated in dnd/pf corebooks.
Lawful/chaotic is more about methods of behaviour. For example, two violinists,
Lawful violinist practices the techniques always trying to do it properly and correctly, getting better by being more perfect.
Chaotic violinist just fiddles around playing songs they like and getting better by pure passion.
A lawful person is someone who is dedicated to things, whatever those things may be, while a chaotic person lacks dedication.
That is why a paladin and a monk must be lawful, because both concepts center around dedication to something, goodness and self perfection respectively.
This means that the lion's lawfullness didn't come into play above. Although, killing is not always evil, the reason behind a killing is what makes it good or evil. Killing to survive is fine, killing for enjoyment or sport is not (except for cases where we are compensating for negative alterations of the environment)
Any ruleset about alignment should be just the rules and leave the definitions of what qualifies as good or bad up to the players and gm, then they can use those rules while accounting for the different cultures and ideals.
In The Island of Dr. Moreau, he turned the lion's body into that of a humanoid. The lion man's mind was not awakened. He had no alignment like a Wyvern. He organized the animal men against Moreau, the hero and Moreau's so called daughter escaped, and the island probably descended into barbarity.
If someone has no ethical sense and cannot learn to pretend to be normal, like the Kender, civilization must be saved from them somehow.
Sorry. I was drawing from a movie. Here's a link to a summery of the book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Doctor_Moreau
It still makes my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ethics and morals are subjective. There is no objective version. The closest that you can get to objective is have defineing ethics that ensure the continuation of one's own form of life first, and the continuation of other forms second (as long as it doesn't interfere with the former), in a general, long term sense, not really on the scale of individuals (aka, destroying entire planets or ecosystems is bad since the biological purpose of life is to reproduce).
You are forgetting something. Detect evil. How does the magic work? Who's definition of evil is being used for the spell? The caster's, the diety's, the target's, that of the spell creator?
In reality we can only judge by our own beliefs, but in fantasy setting a detect evil spell and lie detecting spells allow other and more accurate standards.
Now, I know that this is a very extreme, and admittedly stupid example. I mean, I know you as DM wouldn't have a random Commoner with a brain tumor attack my character for zero reason. But it helps my point, which is: Not every race or species are put together like a human. And holding every man, woman, child, Halfling, Orc, dragon, demon and angel to the exact same alignment grid, with the exact same behaviors being 'good' or 'evil' or 'chaotic' or 'lawful' for each of them, that's something that drives me crazy.
That's all I'm saying.
Doesn't matter. Your awakened Lion IS going to be judged by humanoid mores. Because you're either one of the following two things.
1. A member of a humanoid society, in which case you have an implicit social contract with a society's laws and mores.
2. Not a member of society in which case you've just proven yourself to be a dangerous monster that needs to be handled how other dangerous monsters are.
The assumption of course is that the campaign setting is not called Planet Of The Lions.
3. You are an animal, Detect evil or whatever gives you nothing, and society treats you as a smart, trained, animal when they find out.
Several posters on this board have gone the route of no alignment.
|
I have one objection and it's the same objection I had with the original. It suggests a relationship between chaos and evil, and good and law. The conflicts should be split up in a more even-handed manner, probably by making a separate table for each alignment and including mixed actions in both applicable tables.
Sample Chaotic + Good:
Benevolent Rebellion - you defied an authority figure or refused orders to protect others.
Sample Lawful + Evil:
Exploitative Agreement - you took advantage of someone's desperation to force an unfair contract or promise.
Violence and corrupting an innocent also should be simply evil, while purifying an innocent should be revised to redeeming an evildoer and listed as strictly good. Malign Associates also should not be chaotic + evil since alliances are if anything lawful constructs.
Extended discussion:
Law and chaos are partly culturally determined. Many lawful characters support some form of cultural tradition or authority and acting against that chosen culture would constitute a chaotic act. Eating beef is not chaotic for the average american, but it would be for a devout hindu or dedicated vegetarian.
Good and evil are absolute in PF terms. The lion is I think a question of whether people are morally responsible for actions they do not freely choose. It's an evil act to kill an innocent. Is it less evil, or nonevil, if you are intoxicated at the time (eg drunk driving)? If you were drugged without your consent or knowledge (someone spiked your virgin cocktail)? Charmed? Dominated? And how much loss of free will do instincts represent?
I'd consider instincts a mitigating factor in an evil act, but not a completely exculpatory one. It's the difference between Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter (crimes of passion). And just like someone who gets violently angry when drunk shouldn't drink, ff you are a member of a species with predatory instincts, and you don't want to obey those instincts, you need to do whatever is necessary to keep them under control. A merciful Amulet of Mighty Fists would be a good start.
3. You are an animal, Detect evil or whatever gives you nothing, and society treats you as a smart, trained, animal when they find out.
An awakened animal is a magical beast, and can have an alignment (though it probably takes a while to drift away from true neutral).
If you still don't like that, try a vampire using Blood of the Night's hunger rules. You fail a will save, you eat your friend or an innocent bystander.
An awakened animal has an alignment, and their instincts can be redirected, like a marine or navy seal. Note that an army sniper has to take their shot on instinct.
A gang of terrorists, would be organized to cause the maximum of death and chaos. I would have them detect as neutral evil.
Surviving members of the Donner Party went to the church of their choice, confessed, and received forgiveness. In the game there is an atonement spell.
Humans are prey animals. Soldiers fight with training not instincts (not the sort you are refering too.)
Atonement is more for clerics and paladins who have offended their diety.
Training till it's instinctive. On H2, which is the second history channel, they did a thing where they recreated the most interesting missions of army snipers. Lots of times, they have a split second to make the shot.
That is a different thing then the instincts that animals have. We call it "instinctive" but it is more like muscle memory combined with thinking without words.
To bring this discussion back on track, I have a few comments for master_marshmallow:
1. Your action-consequence-point system goes from 1 to 12, but the scale in UCmp is from 1 to 9. Is your scale wider than 1 to 9?
2. In UCmp, they state that it should be more difficult to strengthen a characters position within an alignment. As per their example, doing several minor good acts when you are a little good (3) does practically nothing toward becoming very good (1). Your point system does not seem to reflect this. Might I suggest a caveat that says, "If you perform an act that is normally within your alignment, the point shift is halved, even any point shift happens at all. Doing what is expected of your alignment does not change your alignment."
A form of diminishing returns.
3. Your point scale seems a little radical, especially considering going from a little good (3) to purely evil (9) is only a 6 point shift, or the simple act of destroying someone's property. I highly recommend reducing these point values drastically, perhaps even cutting out most acts that currently shifts alignment by 1 point.
4. I think codes/oaths should also be accounted by your system. A paladin that knowingly lies when his oath forbids him from doing so has vastly greater repercussions than if a neutral good character would knowingly lie.
Otherwise, I think this sort of system is a great idea and is, at times, much needed. Players performing actions they want to perform instead of what their character would actually perform is a common occurrence in most of the games I've played in/GMed.
If requested, I will gladly assist you in developing and polishing this sort of system.
To bring this discussion back on track, I have a few comments for master_marshmallow:
1. Your action-consequence-point system goes from 1 to 12, but the scale in UCmp is from 1 to 9. Is your scale wider than 1 to 9?
2. In UCmp, they state that it should be more difficult to strengthen a characters position within an alignment. As per their example, doing several minor good acts when you are a little good (3) does practically nothing toward becoming very good (1). Your point system does not seem to reflect this. Might I suggest a caveat that says, "If you perform an act that is normally within your alignment, the point shift is halved, even any point shift happens at all. Doing what is expected of your alignment does not change your alignment."
A form of diminishing returns.
3. Your point scale seems a little radical, especially considering going from a little good (3) to purely evil (9) is only a 6 point shift, or the simple act of destroying someone's property. I highly recommend reducing these point values drastically, perhaps even cutting out most acts that currently shifts alignment by 1 point.
4. I think codes/oaths should also be accounted by your system. A paladin that knowingly lies when his oath forbids him from doing so has vastly greater repercussions than if a neutral good character would knowingly lie.
Otherwise, I think this sort of system is a great idea and is, at times, much needed. Players performing actions they want to perform instead of what their character would actually perform is a common occurrence in most of the games I've played in/GMed.
If requested, I will gladly assist you in developing and polishing this sort of system.
Noted.
I wouldn't have posted the thread if I wasn't looking for help.
The main reason why the points are where they are is because I wanted certain actions to basically guarantee an alignment shift. Straight up murder a guy? Evil, period. Bring someone back to life? Good, period. The gradual scaling of the actions is cut short because I wanted to keep the 1-20 list for the purposes of the background generator, but I am all in favor of expanding it to include more acts, and to have less intense swings in alignment.
This is after all, a rough draft.
8 points is enough for an extreme alignment shift in either direction, 6 points also ensures a complete alignment shift, just not to the extreme end.
Because neutral is designed to be morally/legally flexible and ambiguous, I believe halving point shifts while neutral is also called for. UCmp offers a suggestion of using 2-8 as the range for neutral, but I think halving shifts through neutral is a better solution; it offers granularity while retaining the fact that extreme actions can still have extreme consequences.
Another option is to have the following scale:
Good/Lawful (1-3), Neutral (4-9), Evil/Chaotic (10-12)
This array may allow for more storytelling flexibility. And you could keep your current point scale for the most part.
For example, a lawful good character trains his entire life to get into the local paladin order of Erastil, mostly because it is expected of him by his family. So let's say his alignment is Lawful (3) and Good (3), because although he is willingly becoming a paladin, it may not have been his ultimate life goal.
So our character trains his entire childhood life to become a paladin, and finally does so. At the same time, he unknowingly falls in love with and courts the baron's wife. The baron finds out and publicly confronts the paladin, wife at his side. The baron's wife, not wanted to lose face and admit guilt, claims that the paladin seduced/took advantage of her (she lies).
Now, the paladin's world comes crashing down around him. Utterly betrayed by the one he so desperately loved, and his entire childhood, all of his faith, effort, and dedication, completely disregarded in seconds like rotten food. This event awakens some deep seeded rage within him (prelude into multiclass Barbarian), causing him to mindlessly lash out at the baron's wife, accidentally killing her and her husband in his rage. When he comes to his senses, he is flabbergasted, ashamed, and guilt-stricken. He flees from the city, taking to the wilds to hide and start a new life. He is now a shattered man, rage and self-preservation are all he knows, perhaps he joins a band of bandits to survive, but always having regrets/reservations about his/their actions.
Now in this narrative, would an extreme alignment shift be warranted? He realized what he did was wrong, so I would say the point shift would be halved, putting him at something like 8-10, Neutral Chaotic.
So, a few things to consider. I'd say if the character performs an act that is extreme to his alignment, then maybe add 4 points to the shift. But if the character is under some kind of outer influence when he performs an act, or has instant reservations/regrets about his actions, then halving the point shift is in order.
The original concept, still confuses me.
I'll go with my first impulse and hide the topic.
Rather then direct points, actions should have a point value, when an action is taken you average that value into their alignment, thus doing actions that are 3 points will slowly adjust one's alignment to 3 but an evil character that does one good act doesnt get much of a shift.
I would also leave lawful/chaotic and good/evil as seperate things, since being a good person doesn't make them dedicated, and being evil doesn't make one chaotic. Assassins are usually lawful evil for example (keeping contracts and never revealing who hired them is good for their business after all)