| Moorningstaar |
For some time now the issue of alignment has bothered me. What is it? What does your alignment mean? How exactly do you translate an alignment into a play style?
I've tried to make some sense of the alignment system and yet I come upon several hurdles every time. I've looked around online and yet no one interpretation seems to be considered any more valid (except perhaps by its author) than any other.
For instance, Paladins and Monks are required to be lawful. Now here's the definition of that particular word per Merriam Webster's Dictionary:
Lawful-
1
a : being in harmony with the law a lawful judgment
b : constituted, authorized, or established by law : rightful lawful institutions
2: law-abiding lawful citizens
This suggests that paladins and monks (commonly seen as disciplined and spiritual) would have to follow the laws of any land they were in. This becomes especially interesting if these characters end up in an evil society.
Now the people I'm DMing for are telling me that lawful means following your own code of conduct. Of course this would suggest that we could completely remove one dimension of the alignment graph, thus simplifying it as simply Good, Neutral, or Evil. After all, we all follow our own set of values regardless of whether those values have been defined for us by our own personal experience, our own selfish desires, or the law. And lets not forget that this would in fact be to the complete contrary of the above definition.
On top of this, having lawful at one end of a scale would suggest that unlawful behavior would be at the other. Now chaotic could be interpreted that way, but in reality anarchistic would be a closer approximation. And yet my players play chaotic as more of a trickster or lovable scamp. There seems to be no opposite. So how does one move away from lawful? When has someone become chaotic? These things are more vague than 3rd grade poetry.
About a week ago I had an epiphany (well I guess you'll have to be the judge on that) regarding this conundrum whilst pondering the nature of Monks and Paladins. As stated above, both of these classes are lawful, and yet the standard interpretation would suggest the opposite. But what if, instead of lawful we used the word 'principled'?
It makes perfect sense for a principled person to violate the law if their own code (dare I say it? there principles) is in contradiction to that law. Now Paladins and Monks make sense, and it becomes easier to tell how they should be played.
And having principled on one end of the spectrum would suggest that a person who deferred to the law would inhabit the opposite end. And so I return to you your lawful alignment with a shiny new zip code.
But wouldn't that make chaotic homeless, you ask? Well, first off a truly chaotic personality is a rarity. In order to be such you'd have to change your value system radically and regularly. Outside of playing a character suffering from multiple personality disorder this seems highly unlikely within the game. So I suggest we change this designation as well, to more aptly reflect the manner in which players play it. And so I give you the new and improved, stream lined, and retrofitted chaotic alignment: Impulsive.
Whereas a Lawful person defers to the law to make their decisions and a principled person defers to a code of conduct they've been taught (in most cases) an impulsive person would defer to their own emotions to choose their course of action. And this alignment is right at home between the other two because it is impulse that leads us to break with our principles or break the law.
Good, Neutral and Evil need little explanation, however I will give a quick example of each just to insure we're on the same page.
Good - A good character's actions are intended to help others or society at large. Most cops, armed forces members, and almost all firefighters would fall neatly in this category. When witnessing a mugging a good person would jump to the victim's defense.
Neutral - Neutral characters tend to have a 'what's in it for me' attitude. While they are not solely selfless they believe in arrangements where both parties benefit, or in which their risk is minimalized. A neutral person coming upon a mugging is more likely to call the police or take pictures. This is where most people fall whether they'd prefer to admit it or not. Most trend towards good or evil. Another term for this could be Opportunist.
Evil - Evil people are only interested in their own goals and desires and will exploit anyone around them to achieve them. They have no compunction against harming someone, even if its only for a little amusement. When coming across our hypothetical mugging victim an evil person might simply watch for entertainment. They might jump in for a little good dirty fun. Perhaps they'll simply lift the victim's wallet whilst he's being beaten to death.
This creates the following new and improved chart:
Principled Good | Impulsive Good | Lawful Good
Principled Opportunist | Impulsive Opportunist | Lawful Opportunist
Principled Evil | Impulsive Evil | Lawful Evil
In terms of jobs this would look like:
Fire Fighter | Charity Worker | Judge/Statesman
Honest Mechanic | Salesman | Lawyer
Honorable Thief | Thug | Shady Politician
Honestly I could probably have filled every slot of this with different types of lawyers but why should they have all the attention?
Hopefully this Omnibus helps some of you understand how to use the alignment system. Either way I'm sure you'll tell me any places I may or may not have gone wrong lol.
Also it occurred to me that the alignment system could be used to more closely specialize a character. For instance each alignment could give a +1 or -1 to a stat or save or a +2 or -2 bonus to a skill. For instance:
Principled people exercise a code of conduct that is internally enforced which could give them a +1 on will saves.
Impulsive people often find themselves in situations that require quick thinking which could provide a +1 on reflex saves
Lawful people spend there time considering how to solve society's problems (or profit from them) which could give them a +1 Int score.
A good person has more experience trying to solve disputes with words and would get a +2 to Diplomacy.
An opportunist would regularly be trying to get the best deal in any arrangement and would get a +2 to bluff.
An Evil person is more likely to solve issues with force and would get a +2 to intimidate.
This yields the following table of buffs
+2 Diplomacy +1 Will | +2 Diplomacy +1 Reflex | +2 Diplomacy +1 Int
+2 Bluff +1 Will | +2 Bluff +1 Reflex | +2 Bluff +1 Int
+2 Intimidate +1 Will| +2 Intimidate + 1 Ref | +2 Intimidate +1 Int
A good rule of thumb for alignment switches would be that when a character changes alignment through voluntary choices they lose the boons of their alignment immediately but do not gain the boons of their new alignment for a week.
Thanks for your consideration and thoughtful respectful response.
| Quark Blast |
The problem with the alignment system is it's supposed to be "objective" and sit outside the control of PCs. Like it's baked into the universe.
The fact is that the definitions in the official published rules are more than a little self-contradictory.
On top of that are all of the opinions that the players bring to the table. People are biased in favor of their opinion, the more so if they consider their opinion to be well considered / thought through.
Then comes the Paladin who has a code that has additional and very strict requirements that, to some, seem to have little to do with being Lawful Good.
Consequently the alignment system is this hybrid of fluff that has crunchy consequences. This doubly sucks for the GM because the connections between fluff and crunch are not always clear, except when they are and in those cases can often make little sense.
The alignment system also seems to be trying to model something of the real world, like it's a way to get a simulationist hold on ethics / morals. This is kind of bogus though. Hence the oft repeated quote about human nature (which in the 3.PF world could aptly be applied to most sentient races).
Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains an unuprooted small corner of evil.
But to answer your question:
This is| Create Mr. Pitt |
This why I like paladins to adhere to a mutually-agreed upon code. We can come to a mutual understanding of the rules of that paladin. I don't have to be in a position where I am telling a playing what is objectively good or objectively lawful, nor do they have to guess. We just come to an agreement on a code.
Alignment is not great. It's shorthand for a subject that is fuzzy around the edges and more complicated when applied to decisions involving life or death.
| Quark Blast |
This why I like paladins to adhere to a mutually-agreed upon code. We can come to a mutual understanding of the rules of that paladin. I don't have to be in a position where I am telling a playing what is objectively good or objectively lawful, nor do they have to guess. We just come to an agreement on a code.
Alignment is not great. It's shorthand for a subject that is fuzzy around the edges and more complicated when applied to decisions involving life or death.
Exactly that. I only had one player who played a Paladin and that was the first thing we did. We sat down and wrote out his code based on PC background, patron deity and our (note the plural) agreement on how that would be generally adjudicated.
It worked great btw.