Alignment as a Grid and Detect...

OK, based on the Detect Evil spell the power of the aura is determined by HD. This makes sense for evil outsiders and undead, but what about beigns that can choose their allignment, like PC/NPCs?

So instead of basing it on HD, how about ranks of evil/good,law/chaos of 1-20, with true Neutral being 0,0.

This would allow for more options in role playing, and a little wiggle room for classes with alignment restrcitions.

For example, the Paladin comes across someone with only a faint trace of evil, does he smite her or try to persuade her of her evil actions? If said Paladin violates the law of the land but in the name of good he might slide a bit on the L scale, but not change on the G and keep his abilities.

Thus all characters have a number after each component of their allignment.
1st level PCs are restricted to a max of 10 in each. Potentially putting them dead center of their allignment. Significant acts, as determined by the representative of the gods the DM, shift the scale in gameplay. Either at each level or in each session as determined by the group.

This better defines allignment w/o completly rewritting every spells and ability based on it. What do you think?

As a bit of background, Stormborn and I have worked on a setting that I'll be running as a campaign. All the players have chosen to be divine casters: paladin, druid and cleric. I know the paladin will be using Detect Evil frequently. In the setting there is a lot of potential for moral questions, bringing up for me the question of what exactly constitutes evil. I'm not happy with the idea that one minute you're not evil and the next you are. I think it should be more of a process, hence Stormborn's development of the grid.

I think it'll also be a way for the DM to reward PCs who perform good acts, and keep one particular player from randomly killing people that he could more easily subdue. (but that's another issue)

I suppose any numerical system could work, although keeping it based on 20 is fitting.

Dave

grid

Although I haven't been a big fan of numerical alignment systems in the past, your use of the word "grid" got me thinking - about the grid map.

[I'll just note here that I don't care for numbered alignment since morality and ethics possess more than just 1 or 2 dimensions. Morality and ethics are open to subjective interpretation.]

But anyway, a numerical alignment system could lend itself to a situation where it is easier to detect an opposing alignment. Kind of a neat idea. That super powerful BBEG should be easier to detect than his lowly henchmen, shouldn't he? Maybe from a greater range? And/or, maybe the BBEG taints an area when he walks through it. Lots of potential ideas there.

Has anyone developed anything like this?

Zhnov

Rafael Ceurdepyr said:

...In the setting there is a lot of potential for moral questions, bringing up for me the question of what exactly constitutes evil. I'm not happy with the idea that one minute you're not evil and the next you are. I think it should be more of a process, hence Stormborn's development of the grid. ..

Click to expand...

If you haven't already, check out The Book of Vile Darkness. Some of the first things discussed are what exactly is evil, different perspectives of it, and using said perspectives in a game.

Zhnov said:

[I'll just note here that I don't care for numbered alignment since morality and ethics possess more than just 1 or 2 dimensions. Morality and ethics are open to subjective interpretation.]

Click to expand...

Not according the the basic concept of D&D. Evil is evil. Good is good. Etc. This is, in fact, the foundation of The Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds. While there is always room for introducing moral relativism into the game, it is not be any means the default. And really, if you're going to be morally relativistic, everyone comes out, on a cosmic level, neutral.


On the idea of a grid...I have tried this and in general I found that I, as the DM, was the greatest flaw in the system. I would forget to assign points to the scale, I would end up creating the NPC grids arbitrarily, etc. Add on to this the problem of different interpretations of the same act, and the system becomes even more complex.

Take the idea of assassinating by poison a despotic (and evil) ruler to keep him from starting a war with a good kingdom leading to massive deaths in both lands.

A player might choose this course of action thinking it is chaotic (poison and assassination are against the law) but good (you are killing an evil being and saving lives). The RAW (both in the PH and BoED) however are clear that this is a chaotic and evil act.

--> Assassination is evil (thus assassins must be evil)
--> Poison use is not good (thus the rules against Exalted characters using it)
--> the ends do not justify the means (which is the reason that the archons, eladrins, and guardinals do no commit infanticide on the young of the demons, devils, and yugoloths...or on the children of evil mortal species). The idea that some good may come of an evil act is not justification.

In the above example, the death of the despot could end up leading to war as the good kingdom is blamed or a civil war of succession. Often despots are using force to keep control of areas that would descend into chaos if they were not there and removing them requires a long term plan and a gentle hand.

Anyway, this whole ramble is to indicate that using a grid system (or tracking alignment at all for that matter) can lead to conflict, requires a clear set of rules about what is good and what is evil (the BoVD and BoED help with this a great deal), and it takes a great deal of attention from the DM.

DC

ditch alignment, use reputation

Stormborn and Rafael, it sounds like you're going to be in a game where the usual black/white morality of fantasy won't apply. My suggestion, in this case, is to adopt a reputation system instead of alignment, and possibly incorporate personality feats (a free download for the dynasties & demagogues book is available at Atlas games website which contains a description of personality feats). Alignment is meant to mimic the character's internal compass, and personality feats do a much better job of this.
Reputations provide insight into a character's morality, but are not his morality, and neither do they confine him to code of conduct. Instead, there are consequences for every action. A paladin may lose reputation by thievery or gain it by defending a temple (perhaps the term "paladin" itself is a reputation). Reputation is the outside world looking at the character and making some kind of judgement. Here's how reputations work...

REPUTATIONS
- Reputations are qualified by (the reputation) (a numberical modifier) (who the reputation applies to) (description). Now, reputation is a double edged sword because while you get bonuses to social rolls with some people, you have penalties with others (as described in the reputation itself)

- Example: Rain maker (4) among the Ngozo tribe. The character is known for calling rain and controlling the weather for the Ngozo chief; this reputation is directly related to his loyalty to the Ngozo. Other local tribes may have heard of him, but he doesn't get any modifier with them. The enemies of the Ngozo consider the character a prime target to hold for ransom, or to weaken the Ngozo before a raid; their enemies believe in his powers.

Thus, if he wanted to win the favor of the chief, he could promise an abundance of rain for crops that year, gaining +4 Diplomacy. Alternately, if he threatens a local warlord living in the floodplains with a disastrous monsoon, he would get +4 Intimidate. Now, if the rain maker needs to travel disguised through enemy territory, and comes across a group of enemy scouts who have heard stories of how this rain maker looks, he would get -4 Disguise. When he is taken as prisoner back to their camp, the enemy chief has heard of his abilities. In exchange for his life, the enemy chief demands he cause a terrible storm to strike the Ngozo lands. The character refuses, and right before he is killed, his allies rescue him! When the chief of the Ngozo hears of the character's loyalty, he is greatly impressed! The character's reputation as Rain maker increases to (+6) among the Ngozo.

GAINING REPUTATION
- Whenever you give out experience, or whenever you (DM) are trying to manage or find information (you know when the players just start talking amongst themselves), tell them to ponder how their character's reputations have changed. A decent rule is to allow each character 2 reputation points per level after first; in a sense everyone is neutral at first level. Alternately, if everyone's willing to do more prep work, you could assign 8 points of reputation to each character at the beginning of the game. Reputations have the same maximum value as class skills (i.e. 4 at 1st, 5 at 2nd, etc).

-Buying reputation (variant): Players spend experience to "purchase" reputations, at a cost of 100 exp per point of reputation; the maximum values remain the same. These reputations must reflect in game actions, or fit in with the character's overall personality and archetype.

-Encouraging role-play (variant): Only those experience points gained through the use of the character's personality feat can be used to buy reputation (As above). Thus, a character's force of personality is needed to fuel a reputation as are his actions.

Just discovered that Monte Cook has already done a numerical gauage of the allignment system as written in Book of Hallowed Might. I think I would tweek it a bit, mainly the definitions, but it seems to work. I will run it past Raef when I see her.

The added level of complexity is indeed the issue. Still not sure what we may decided to do about it. Ultimatelly the problem is that, while a numerical grid gives you a finer tuned system, you still have a very quantified and discreet system of morality, if you are A you are good if you are B you are bad. Doesn't matter if you are using numbers or the alignments as written.

That and I figured out that given the system described in my first post you get 400 possible varities of LG, LE, CG, and CE. Only 20 each of LN,CN, NG, and NE. and only 1 true N. Thus 1681 allignments instead of 9.

In the Monte Cook system N is not used, but each of C, L, E, and G have a 1-9 scale in which and 1s are basically Neutral for purposes of determining allignment rules issues.

more thought is needed.

A little alignment "grid" I started working on a while ago is a bit broader and uses smaller numbers for each axis, and allows a character to be evil or good in one way while being the opposite in some other way, i.e. an egocentric but honorable paladin who still counts as being lawful good, while allowing decent variance amongst neutral characters too. I made several small axes to measure alignments, and the total point value of different components determines the character's "by the book" alignment for purposes of Detect and Protection From spells etc. The higher the score on any given axis, the more Good or Lawful the character is considered to be (depending on whether it's a good/evil axis or law/chaos axis).

A Good/Evil score of 11, 12, or 13 is morally Neutral; a Law/Chaos score of 11, 12, or 13 is ethically Neutral. Good/Evil scores of 14+ are morally Good, while Good/Evil scores of 10- are morally Evil. Law/Chaos scores of 14+ are ethically Lawful, while Law/Chaos scores of 10- are ethically Chaotic. For greater variance, you might use a range of 10-14 for Neutrality, making the Good/Lawful range 15-20 and the Evil/Chaotic range 1-9. Paladins probably would not be allowed any real low scores for Righteousness or Compassion, considering what's specified in the PH's paladin oath, and likewise with Veracity and Lawfulness.

Righteousness/Villainy Axis (Good/Evil)
5 Righteous, 4 Noble, 3 Selfish, 2 Bitter, 1 Villainous

Humility/Ego Axis (Good/Evil)
5 Humble, 4 Modest, 3 Confident, 2 Prideful, 1 Egotistical

Compassion/Cruelty Axis (Good/Evil)
5 Compassionate, 4 Benevolent, 3 Indifferent, 2 Spiteful, 1 Cruel

Philanthropy/Greed Axis (Good/Evil)
5 Philanthropic, 4 Generous, 3 Possessive, 2 Miserly, 1 Greedy

Veracity/Deceit Axis (Law/Chaos)
5 Veracious, 4 Honest, 3 Sincere, 2 Subversive, 1 Deceitful

Honor/Dishonor Axis (Law/Chaos)
5 Honorable, 4 Loyal, 3 Ostensible, 2 Disloyal, 1 Dishonorable

Reliability/Spontaneity Axis (Law/Chaos)
5 Reliable, 4 Steadfast, 3 Consistent, 2 Erratic, 1 Spontaneous

Lawfulness/Rebelliousness Axis (Law/Chaos)
5 Lawful, 4 Responsible, 3 Complacent, 2 Noncomformist, 1 Rebellious

Alignment Configuration
Alignment plays a strong role in the Realms, with the war of Good versus Evil common to fantasy, as well as a strong dynamic between Law and Chaos which also influences Faerunian society. The myriad of peoples populating Toril are not easily catalogued by two word snippets describing their morals and ethics – attempting to do so glosses over both subtle and glaring differences amongst individuals. Demons are Chaotic Evil, to be sure, but so might a bugbear pillager – he commits crimes against others for personal gain and has a total disregard for laws, yet surely the goblinoid does not approach the fiend in malice or bedlam.
Instead, a value is assigned to each component of alignment, which allows a more flexible interpretation of how anarchic, empathic, ordered, or selfish a person may be. The moral and ethical components remain the same, though the Neutral options are removed. That is to say an individual may be Evil or Good, and Chaotic or Lawful, but no longer Neutral in either respect.
Each component is then given a numerical value, from 0 to 10, which indicates how strongly the individual feels about his morals or ethics. A rating of 0 indicates a complete lack of morals or ethics, and only Constructs, Elementals, Plants, and certain Outsiders and deities may have a 0. A 10 rating indicates a creature with a complete fanatical devotion to that moral or ethical trait, and may only be attained by Elementals, Outsiders and deities. Within those parameters lie the values attainable by mortals – from 1 to 9. Ratings from 1 to 3 include the vast majority of humanity (~90%), including all character classes which formerly required a Neutral rating. Most of the remaining population (~9%) have a rating from 4 to 6 on an axis. Only ~1% of the population will have an alignment rating of 7 to 9, showing fanatical devotion to that aspect of their alignment. Statistics shows us how the population breaks down along the two axes: