Alignment XY chart


Homebrew and House Rules


The alignment system is unrealistic for three main reasons. First, it assumes that a person's morality and ethics can be boiled down to 2 words, and second, that any character can be put into one of 9 alignments. Lastly, it's an abstract depiction of a person that can be hard to keep track of.

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about the This home brew rules set attempts to "fix" the alignment system by implementing a numerical system to track a person's morality and ethics.

Rather than viewing alignment as 9 boxes that do not allow for overlap, this system uses an X-Y plot to track a person's alignment.

X represents morality where -100 to -34 represent evil, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent good.

Y represents ethics where -100 to -34 represent chaotic, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent lawful.

At level 1, a character chooses which alignment to start as. This gives him 10 points in the direction of his alignment choice. A paladin then would start with an alignment of 44, 44 (44 good/evil, 44 lawful/chaos).

Neutral character instead start at 0. Chaotic Neutral would be 0,-44 (0 good/evil, and -44 lawful/chaos)

Characters gain or lose points toward their alignment based on their acts.

1. simple acts- Simple acts contribute 2 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Simple acts are everyday little things that one can do. Good simple acts might include donating to charity or helping a neighbor with yard work without expecting reward. Simple evil acts may include battery or theft. A simple lawful action could include reporting a crime you saw that didn't happen to you, while a simple chaotic act may include leaving work early or ignoring the speed limit.

2. minor acts- Minor acts contribute 5 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Minor acts mean that the character goes out of their way to do them. Good minor acts might include doing volunteer work (like at a soup kitchen) or non-compulsory community service. Minor evil acts may include premeditated murder and rape. A minor lawful act might be working as a civil servant on the weekends or paying your taxes, while a minor chaotic act might be open protesting.

3. major acts- Major acts contribute 10 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Major acts are paragon acts of their alignment. A major act for a good character usually means risking your life for someone else with no promise of reward, while an evil major act would include remorseless or sadistic killing. A major lawful action includes putting your life on the line for the community, while a major chaotic action might be swearing a life on the road.

These examples of acts are just suggestions and should be tailored to suit your table.

Also classes that are alignment dependent, such as paladins, anti-paladin, monks, etc. have 10 points of cushion in the appropriate alignment. So a monk can have a Y rating of 23 before they become neutral. This is to take pressure off the player and give him time to correct his play style before having to atone.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Honestly, I feel this is an over complication - but I see how some could find it useful.

First, I don't think that the alignment system as written allows no overlap, rather I see it as a model - and models are always simplified for ease of use. For example: consider this picture. If we cut this into three equal sized boxes from left to right, I think we would all agree that the left most box is mostly red - to the point that if we had to use a single word to describe it, we would call it "red" or at least "reddish". In my example, the "model" only allows three words for the three boxes (one word each), but no reasonable person would look at the box and say that only three hues are represented. The box isn't, in other words, uniformly red. A pixel on the left edge is clearly not the same as a pixel on the right edge, but the box is, overall, "red".

Second, I don't feel that your system actually addresses the problem of overlap. It still has hard lines where you cross over from one alignment to another - and without a way to differentiate between say "just barely lawful" and "lawful", it brings us back to the same place.

Finally, if you (not you specifically, the general "you") want to define alignment as hard transitions from one alignment to another, then I agree that it can never be realistic. You can use a grid, as you've suggested (which still provides no mechanical benefit, but perhaps would help some people role-play) but for a person who sees alignment as a shackle instead of tool, I don't think there is a solution.

Finally, if you can get your hands on it, I'd suggest looking thru the alignment section of the 1st Ed books. It has a similar idea. Again, good stuff if that's your style -just not the peanut butter I would serve with my chocolate.

YMMV


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every time I see someone try to "fix" alignment, I always have to ask 'why?' If you're using alignment correctly* all alignment is is a tool to use for developing your character, and it's largely under the player's control, unless the DM rules that the character's actions justify a switch. Trying to qualify it beyond this is often more trouble than it's worth, and lacks the finesse to understand that alignment isn't simply a arithmetic sum of the character's actions.

Moreover, it's often the issue that such things tend to encourage the players to play their alignment rather than their character, especially if they fear losing class features, if they change alignment. A LN character may perform acts ranging from good, evil, lawful and even chaotic, because the character is three dimensional. Sure, they will tend towards law over all, but by imposing this type of tracking method, the player will tend more towards choosing only the lawful option, even if it's not necessarily in character, simply because they get 'punished' (even if there is no mechanical effect, it's still a psychological impact) if they don't

*PRD wrote:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

[...]
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too much work for too little payoff.

Best to just jettison the entire concept.


Tholomyes wrote:

Every time I see someone try to "fix" alignment, I always have to ask 'why?' If you're using alignment correctly* all alignment is is a tool to use for developing your character, and it's largely under the player's control, unless the DM rules that the character's actions justify a switch. Trying to qualify it beyond this is often more trouble than it's worth, and lacks the finesse to understand that alignment isn't simply a arithmetic sum of the character's actions.

Moreover, it's often the issue that such things tend to encourage the players to play their alignment rather than their character, especially if they fear losing class features, if they change alignment. A LN character may perform acts ranging from good, evil, lawful and even chaotic, because the character is three dimensional. Sure, they will tend towards law over all, but by imposing this type of tracking method, the player will tend more towards choosing only the lawful option, even if it's not necessarily in character, simply because they get 'punished' (even if there is no mechanical effect, it's still a psychological impact) if they don't

*PRD wrote:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

[...]
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and
...

I personally find alignment as a silly concept, myself. This house rule came up because the characters we were playing (mine included) weren't actually the alignment that was listed on the sheet. Not a big deal for the barbarian listed as chaotic neutral to turn out be chaotic good, but we had to show the paladin quantifiable proof that his "lawful stupid" take on LG was actually chaotic neutral in execution. So I came up with the idea and the DM and another player fleshed it out. Our situation was probably too specific to share on the forums, but it's helped us see where we all stand. Thank you for your input, btw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A paladin. That explains everything.


Zhayne wrote:
A paladin. That explains everything.

the Paladin cast date rape....I wish I was making that up.


The Shining Fool wrote:

Honestly, I feel this is an over complication - but I see how some could find it useful.

First, I don't think that the alignment system as written allows no overlap, rather I see it as a model - and models are always simplified for ease of use. For example: consider this picture. If we cut this into three equal sized boxes from left to right, I think we would all agree that the left most box is mostly red - to the point that if we had to use a single word to describe it, we would call it "red" or at least "reddish". In my example, the "model" only allows three words for the three boxes (one word each), but no reasonable person would look at the box and say that only three hues are represented. The box isn't, in other words, uniformly red. A pixel on the left edge is clearly not the same as a pixel on the right edge, but the box is, overall, "red".

Second, I don't feel that your system actually addresses the problem of overlap. It still has hard lines where you cross over from one alignment to another - and without a way to differentiate between say "just barely lawful" and "lawful", it brings us back to the same place.

Finally, if you (not you specifically, the general "you") want to define alignment as hard transitions from one alignment to another, then I agree that it can never be realistic. You can use a grid, as you've suggested (which still provides no mechanical benefit, but perhaps would help some people role-play) but for a person who sees alignment as a shackle instead of tool, I don't think there is a solution.

Finally, if you can get your hands on it, I'd suggest looking thru the alignment section of the 1st Ed books. It has a similar idea. Again, good stuff if that's your style -just not the peanut butter I would serve with my chocolate.
YMMV

I wanted to make a system that was more quantifiable to help peg our character's alignment down. In the case of our paladin, it turned out to be something that affected his class levels, but it was not made for us to say "aha! got you" it was to prove to the player that he was not playing the way a paladin should. And while it's true that I have rigid boundaries in place between alignments, I think it offers a little more flexibility by giving varying degrees of each alignment. There's black and white and 198 shades of grey in between to cover the degrees of good and evil in between. It is over complicated, but I'll be honest, we hadn't noticed it because we were *really* board when we did this. It's not something I would do for every game, but I wanted to share nonetheless. Thanks for your in put!


Quote:
the Paladin cast date rape....I wish I was making that up.

The paladin in our party cast unnatural lust (he's a sorcerer too, we're gestalt) to get into an NPC's pants. So...yeah, that happened. Good to see you Showzilla.


I don't think this was necessarily a bad idea, especially given your situation. To be honest I have seen very few people play the alignment on their sheet correctly. Especially Lawful Good. Which, let's face it, can be a hard alignment to play.

I myself have toyed with simply banning the Paladin class from play completely, or otherwise replacing it with a different class. In all honesty the Inquisitor class is how I see most people attempt to play the Paladin (PALADIN SMASH ALL EVIL EVERYWHERE!!!), which may work as a good replacement for people playing Pathfinder. I probably would have banned Paladins too if it hadn't been for the fact that I have seen a couple people truly play the alignment correctly. Let me first start off by saying, 'correctly' is not meant to imply 'perfectly'. Their characters did mess up on occasion, but when they did they roleplayed the resulting grief over their mistake wonderfully. One instance specifically was particularly moving, where the party had encountered a wretch of a vampire. During a brief in character conversation the Paladin learned that the vampire knew it was a wretch, and hated what it had become but could not bring itself to end it's own existence. The Paladin promised to grant him a good death, but apologized and felt remorse for the fact that he had to destroy this other being in order to set things right.

In my understanding of the class, yes a Paladin should seek evil, but should not be smiting the orphan cutpurse trying to get by because he happens to notice him stealing. They should have compassion. They should defend those who are unable to defend themselves, regardless of the victim's alignment, but should in all places endeavor to show restraint even against the misguided attackers. It should boil a Paladin's blood to see a villain go unpunished for a crime it was obvious they committed, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily go vigilante justice on the villain.

I don't see anti-hero being a good character concept for a Paladin. Nor do I see a Paladin holding up the ideal of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or "Good prevails. No matter the cost". On the other hands these sound like perfect background material for an Inquisitor.

Now, should the Paladin encounter something that is evil in it's pure form, some sinister beast or a demon or devil for instance, then by all means put your zealot cap on Mr. Paladin and go smite mode.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Colten McMickens wrote:
I wanted to make a system that was more quantifiable to help peg our character's alignment down. In the case of our paladin, it turned out to be something that affected his class levels, but it was not made for us to say "aha! got you" it was to prove to the player that he was not playing the way a paladin should. And while it's true that I have rigid boundaries in place between alignments, I think it offers a little more flexibility by giving varying degrees of each alignment. There's black and white and 198 shades of grey in between to cover the degrees of good and evil in between. It is over complicated, but I'll be honest, we hadn't noticed it because we were *really* board when we did this. It's not something I would do for every game, but I wanted to share nonetheless. Thanks for your in put!

Ahhh...In that case my first reaction would have been invoking the "don't be a jerk" rule, then, if the player really didn't get how he was being a jerk, I'd have probably done the same thing. Some people respond well to quantifiable stuff - hopefully this will help your player stop being a jerk. :-)


The Shining Fool wrote:
Colten McMickens wrote:
I wanted to make a system that was more quantifiable to help peg our character's alignment down. In the case of our paladin, it turned out to be something that affected his class levels, but it was not made for us to say "aha! got you" it was to prove to the player that he was not playing the way a paladin should. And while it's true that I have rigid boundaries in place between alignments, I think it offers a little more flexibility by giving varying degrees of each alignment. There's black and white and 198 shades of grey in between to cover the degrees of good and evil in between. It is over complicated, but I'll be honest, we hadn't noticed it because we were *really* board when we did this. It's not something I would do for every game, but I wanted to share nonetheless. Thanks for your in put!

Ahhh...In that case my first reaction would have been invoking the "don't be a jerk" rule, then, if the player really didn't get how he was being a jerk, I'd have probably done the same thing. Some people respond well to quantifiable stuff - hopefully this will help your player stop being a jerk. :-)

Cross your fingers. We're giving him options to fix his alignment, switch to a non-lawful paladin variant like one form Unearthed Arcanna from 3.5, or just play a cavalier. He's expressed interest in the cavalier before, so we'll see how it goes. Thanks.


Nihilakh wrote:

I don't think this was necessarily a bad idea, especially given your situation. To be honest I have seen very few people play the alignment on their sheet correctly. Especially Lawful Good. Which, let's face it, can be a hard alignment to play.

I myself have toyed with simply banning the Paladin class from play completely, or otherwise replacing it with a different class. In all honesty the Inquisitor class is how I see most people attempt to play the Paladin (PALADIN SMASH ALL EVIL EVERYWHERE!!!), which may work as a good replacement for people playing Pathfinder. I probably would have banned Paladins too if it hadn't been for the fact that I have seen a couple people truly play the alignment correctly. Let me first start off by saying, 'correctly' is not meant to imply 'perfectly'. Their characters did mess up on occasion, but when they did they roleplayed the resulting grief over their mistake wonderfully. One instance specifically was particularly moving, where the party had encountered a wretch of a vampire. During a brief in character conversation the Paladin learned that the vampire knew it was a wretch, and hated what it had become but could not bring itself to end it's own existence. The Paladin promised to grant him a good death, but apologized and felt remorse for the fact that he had to destroy this other being in order to set things right.

In my understanding of the class, yes a Paladin should seek evil, but should not be smiting the orphan cutpurse trying to get by because he happens to notice him stealing. They should have compassion. They should defend those who are unable to defend themselves, regardless of the victim's alignment, but should in all places endeavor to show restraint even against the misguided attackers. It should boil a Paladin's blood to see a villain go unpunished for a crime it was obvious they committed, but that doesn't mean they should necessarily go vigilante justice on the villain.

I don't see anti-hero being a good character concept for a Paladin. Nor do I see...

As a general rule of thumb, we say a paladin has to put good before lawful, but I feel like allowing the paladin to play any good would be fine. Coincidentally we had an encounter with a succubus. The end result was that the CG barbarian convinced the succubus to attempt an alignment change after the paladin charged in with his "zealot cap" on and hit an innocent bystander with an AoE. It's a really long story and I'll just say that the player is not good at role playing remorse and leave it at that.


I agree with some of the others that it seems a little complicated and time consuming. I did not say that it is not useful. I would say that it is something you would probably not pull out of the game box every night but perhaps when it might be relevant in a situation, a periodic role playing check, or to prove that the paladin is at best neutral but most likely evil.

Of course if you like numbers none of that probably matters to you. And I think that you should at least pay a little attention to the alignment for role playing. I don't think it should matter for most if they just float in and out of alignments.

I once played a stonelord paladin and asked if we could reason with the orcs that did not do use any harm.


I tried to develop a system of values instead.


I think most people underestimate the alignment system. If you read the description and morals of the three "main" LG gods, you will notice a big difference.
The alignment is just there to compass anybody who's asking "what kind of person are you?". Alignment only serves as the very basic guideline for how a character acts.

To give feedback to your system: I find it to be just like the current one with more grades of evil/good and chaotic/lawful (as intended i assume. It could be more useful than the current system with a +/- to alignment modifier as well as a changing alignment system.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

I love how, according to the OP, rape and murder are only 'minor' evil acts. How many people do I need to rape and murder before I am 'evil'??? Opps you laid it out. I can work in a soup kitchen 7 days a week and that gives 35 'good' points. So that's 4 rapes and 3 murders per week for ever and ever and I'm still neutral. 3 rapes and 3 murders per week and I'd end up good. Sounds fine to me... can't wait to start...working in a soup kitchen where every night I can kill or rape one person (ba humbug, can't do both) but it works out even in the end.

Smells like a rancid turd to me.


The Purity of Violence wrote:

I love how, according to the OP, rape and murder are only 'minor' evil acts. How many people do I need to rape and murder before I am 'evil'??? Opps you laid it out. I can work in a soup kitchen 7 days a week and that gives 35 'good' points. So that's 4 rapes and 3 murders per week for ever and ever and I'm still neutral. 3 rapes and 3 murders per week and I'd end up good. Sounds fine to me... can't wait to start...working in a soup kitchen where every night I can kill or rape one person (ba humbug, can't do both) but it works out even in the end.

Smells like a rancid turd to me.

I'm pretty sure if you budget it out like that, you'll end up Lawful Neutral, as that sort of orderly budgeting seems like a simple lawful act.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:

I'm pretty sure if you budget it out like that, you'll end up Lawful Neutral, as that sort of orderly budgeting seems like a simple lawful act.

Hey you're totally right. Of course as a former public servant who worked 2 out of 3 weekends ('cause I was public contact for a building that is open 363 days a year, and that's what the contract said, not to mention I got fantastic penalty rates for working weekends) I'm like a frikking Paragon of Law!!! Also I gots to know, if I have tax deducted out of a fortnightly pay, is that a minor lawful act, or is it per year I pay taxes???

Hey I'm poking holes in the system. Is that a chaotic act? but what if I do it in a systematic way? Does that make it lawful? Does this post count as an evil act?

edited once for spelling. surely that's lawful.


The Purity of Violence wrote:

I love how, according to the OP, rape and murder are only 'minor' evil acts. How many people do I need to rape and murder before I am 'evil'??? Opps you laid it out. I can work in a soup kitchen 7 days a week and that gives 35 'good' points. So that's 4 rapes and 3 murders per week for ever and ever and I'm still neutral. 3 rapes and 3 murders per week and I'd end up good. Sounds fine to me... can't wait to start...working in a soup kitchen where every night I can kill or rape one person (ba humbug, can't do both) but it works out even in the end.

Smells like a rancid turd to me.

Thank you for pointing out the numerical exploit of the system, and, to be fair, that is how some people interpret true neutral. I did say that these examples were only suggestions and should be tailored to fit the table. I don't think there's enough support for this method of tracking alignment so I'm probably not going to try to make some edits to try and negate some of the moral economics that comes with it. If you have some ideas for editing it, I'd love to get that feedback as well.

Like I said, we came up with the idea to add tangibility and a way to track a character's actions to the alignment system, because we had a player that just didn't get it. That being said, there's no since in others using it if its used in practice like the way you demonstrated. Thanks you for your feed back.


I made a thread similar to this, citing the Alignment related material from Ucamp, and expanding on it. Mine didn't really take off either.


master_marshmallow wrote:
I made a thread similar to this, citing the Alignment related material from Ucamp, and expanding on it. Mine didn't really take off either.

It's something that I think everyone has their own ideas about, which is something that I didn't take into account before I posted this thread. This method clearly doesn't please most people, but it did what we needed it to for our specific situation.


Colten McMickens wrote:

The alignment system is unrealistic for three main reasons. First, it assumes that a person's morality and ethics can be boiled down to 2 words, and second, that any character can be put into one of 9 alignments. Lastly, it's an abstract depiction of a person that can be hard to keep track of.

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about the This home brew rules set attempts to "fix" the alignment system by implementing a numerical system to track a person's morality and ethics.

Rather than viewing alignment as 9 boxes that do not allow for overlap, this system uses an X-Y plot to track a person's alignment.

X represents morality where -100 to -34 represent evil, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent good.

Y represents ethics where -100 to -34 represent chaotic, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent lawful.

At level 1, a character chooses which alignment to start as. This gives him 10 points in the direction of his alignment choice. A paladin then would start with an alignment of 44, 44 (44 good/evil, 44 lawful/chaos).

Neutral character instead start at 0. Chaotic Neutral would be 0,-44 (0 good/evil, and -44 lawful/chaos)

Characters gain or lose points toward their alignment based on their acts.

1. simple acts- Simple acts contribute 2 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Simple acts are everyday little things that one can do. Good simple acts might include donating to charity or helping a neighbor with yard work without expecting reward. Simple evil acts may include battery or theft. A simple lawful action could include reporting a crime you saw that didn't happen to you, while a simple chaotic act may include leaving work early or ignoring the speed limit.

2. minor acts- Minor acts contribute 5 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Minor acts mean that the character goes out of their way to do them. Good minor acts might include doing volunteer work (like at a soup kitchen) or non-compulsory community service. Minor...

Honestly, for the examples listed, I was just trying to fill in some gaps for some of them. Murder and rape should be major acts of evil, but I was thinking in terms of Vampire the Masquerade when I was thinking about this, and in that game, they split murder up into varying degrees of evil (including accidental/incidental, premeditated, and just because) based on a "do unto others" 1-10 scale called a humanity rating. So I'm sorry if I offended anybody with the listed examples. That was not my intent.


The Purity of Violence wrote:

I love how, according to the OP, rape and murder are only 'minor' evil acts. How many people do I need to rape and murder before I am 'evil'??? Opps you laid it out. I can work in a soup kitchen 7 days a week and that gives 35 'good' points. So that's 4 rapes and 3 murders per week for ever and ever and I'm still neutral. 3 rapes and 3 murders per week and I'd end up good. Sounds fine to me... can't wait to start...working in a soup kitchen where every night I can kill or rape one person (ba humbug, can't do both) but it works out even in the end.

Smells like a rancid turd to me.

While not having numeric operators, that's how it already works. By the RAW, casting protection from evil is a good act. Cast it enough times, and you're good.


Here's a hint. Remove subjectivity from it.

Good: Cooperatively minded. Believes in the power of working together for a common goal.

Evil: Competitively minded. Believes that in order for one to succeed, another must necessarily fail.

Neutral: Independently minded. Doesn't believe in cooperation with others, but also doesn't value competition; believes both are distractions and independent ability and goals are the only worthwhile pursuits

---
Lawful: Discipline Driven. Believes in doing what needs to be done, even if you don't want to. Conversely, believes in not doing what shouldn't be done, even if you rather would.

Chaotic: Pride Driven. Believes in doing what you want to, even if you don't need to. Conversely, believes in not doing what you don't want to do, even if you really ought to do it.

Neutral: Non-Driven. Not driven by pride nor discipline. May be motivated to fulfill responsibilities, but more for fear of the consequences of not doing so than a sense of discipline. Usually motivated to do what they want, but aren't pridefully motivated to do so at significant risk of consequences. Sometimes represents an active drive for a sense of Harmony and Balance.

Also, don't make it a "give and take" sort of thing. Certain actions are aligned with one of the three spots on the axis and simply tally up all your respective actions. Whichever "stack" has the most points is your alignment. This more closely resembles the actual philosophical concept of Karma and Dharma which isn't a cosmic give-and-take as it is often mistakenly portrayed, but actually a running tally of all your actions in life, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It isn't enough to do 10 good deeds to counter-balance 10 bad deeds; those 10 bad deeds are on your permanent record and nothing can ever "make up" for them.


Kazaan wrote:

Here's a hint. Remove subjectivity from it.

Good: Cooperatively minded. Believes in the power of working together for a common goal.

Evil: Competitively minded. Believes that in order for one to succeed, another must necessarily fail.

Neutral: Independently minded. Doesn't believe in cooperation with others, but also doesn't value competition; believes both are distractions and independent ability and goals are the only worthwhile pursuits

---
Lawful: Discipline Driven. Believes in doing what needs to be done, even if you don't want to. Conversely, believes in not doing what shouldn't be done, even if you rather would.

Chaotic: Pride Driven. Believes in doing what you want to, even if you don't need to. Conversely, believes in not doing what you don't want to do, even if you really ought to do it.

Neutral: Non-Driven. Not driven by pride nor discipline. May be motivated to fulfill responsibilities, but more for fear of the consequences of not doing so than a sense of discipline. Usually motivated to do what they want, but aren't pridefully motivated to do so at significant risk of consequences. Sometimes represents an active drive for a sense of Harmony and Balance.

Also, don't make it a "give and take" sort of thing. Certain actions are aligned with one of the three spots on the axis and simply tally up all your respective actions. Whichever "stack" has the most points is your alignment. This more closely resembles the actual philosophical concept of Karma and Dharma which isn't a cosmic give-and-take as it is often mistakenly portrayed, but actually a running tally of all your actions in life, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It isn't enough to do 10 good deeds to counter-balance 10 bad deeds; those 10 bad deeds are on your permanent record and nothing can ever "make up" for them.

Thanks for the advice.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Alignment XY chart All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules