EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
So, we all know alignment has its issues. Even if you're a big fan, the utility is heavily questioned by enough people that there's a good chance you'll play with, or run for, someone who dislikes it. And the arguments themselves are legion.
But it just occurred to me: Is part of the problem the fact that we view opposing alignments as one single axis, rather than two opposing "pools" or separate "scores"?
That is, as it stands, most players (and essentially all video games) seem to treat alignment as though it were two scores, "lawfulness" and "goodness." Zero in both? Chaotic Evil. 100 in both? Lawful Good. 50/100? Neutral Good. Etc.
But is that the only way? Something generally recognized (though not always happily) is that there are two faces of True Neutral: the "I don't care," "I have no strong feelings one way or the other" school of disinterested neutrality, and the "both sides have a point" school (or, in extreme cases, the "defects to Team Evil when Team Good wins too much" school) of active and supportive neutrality.
But if we treat each edge of the alignment grid as its own score, rather than as an endpoint of a score, this distinction naturally falls out all on its own, with the added benefit that one can be "actively" neutral on one axis and "disinterestedly" neutral on the other. E.g.: Barry Balancekind is G:0 E:0 L:100 C:100. He actively avoids thinking about things in terms of good or evil, seeing the former as indulgent and the latter as wastefully selfish. Instead, what matters to him is the conflict of law and chaos...but not ending it, rather he wishes to see it always remaining in dynamic equilibrium, never truly favoring either one. He wants both things to thrive.
Meanwhile, Samantha Shadow has G:100 E:100 L:0 C:0. She thinks worrying about laws or freedom, tradition or independence, is something of a waste of time. Better to focus on actually getting things done, rather than the method used. But she is open to most any approach, so long as it secures results without compromising the purpose. Selfish, hurtful actions are worth it if they succeed. Altruism is valuable, it secures alliances and fosters loyalty and morale. Never limit yourself unless the limitation provides more value than the lack of one....but don't be such a fool that you reject limitations before you actually consider whether they're worthwhile or not.
Further, this gives formal distinction to the difference between a "neutralizing" action, and an action which pushes you toward a certain alignment. That is, an action which makes Chaos go up isn't the same as one that makes Lawful go down (unless one decides that "overflow" from one axis results in a reduction to its sibling axis, e.g. if you're already at Good 100 and rescue a cartload of orphans, your +5 Good Boi Points instead reduce you to Evil:95. An action which reduces Good is likewise not the same as one which outright increases Evil.
Point being: if we rebuild alignment to allow someone to be "Chaotic Lawful" (or vice-versa), not only do we get some useful distinctions out of it, we might even address at least one of the many problems with the nine-square grid.
But it just occurred to me: Is part of the problem the fact that we view opposing alignments as one single axis, rather than two opposing "pools" or separate "scores"?
That is, as it stands, most players (and essentially all video games) seem to treat alignment as though it were two scores, "lawfulness" and "goodness." Zero in both? Chaotic Evil. 100 in both? Lawful Good. 50/100? Neutral Good. Etc.
But is that the only way? Something generally recognized (though not always happily) is that there are two faces of True Neutral: the "I don't care," "I have no strong feelings one way or the other" school of disinterested neutrality, and the "both sides have a point" school (or, in extreme cases, the "defects to Team Evil when Team Good wins too much" school) of active and supportive neutrality.
But if we treat each edge of the alignment grid as its own score, rather than as an endpoint of a score, this distinction naturally falls out all on its own, with the added benefit that one can be "actively" neutral on one axis and "disinterestedly" neutral on the other. E.g.: Barry Balancekind is G:0 E:0 L:100 C:100. He actively avoids thinking about things in terms of good or evil, seeing the former as indulgent and the latter as wastefully selfish. Instead, what matters to him is the conflict of law and chaos...but not ending it, rather he wishes to see it always remaining in dynamic equilibrium, never truly favoring either one. He wants both things to thrive.
Meanwhile, Samantha Shadow has G:100 E:100 L:0 C:0. She thinks worrying about laws or freedom, tradition or independence, is something of a waste of time. Better to focus on actually getting things done, rather than the method used. But she is open to most any approach, so long as it secures results without compromising the purpose. Selfish, hurtful actions are worth it if they succeed. Altruism is valuable, it secures alliances and fosters loyalty and morale. Never limit yourself unless the limitation provides more value than the lack of one....but don't be such a fool that you reject limitations before you actually consider whether they're worthwhile or not.
Further, this gives formal distinction to the difference between a "neutralizing" action, and an action which pushes you toward a certain alignment. That is, an action which makes Chaos go up isn't the same as one that makes Lawful go down (unless one decides that "overflow" from one axis results in a reduction to its sibling axis, e.g. if you're already at Good 100 and rescue a cartload of orphans, your +5 Good Boi Points instead reduce you to Evil:95. An action which reduces Good is likewise not the same as one which outright increases Evil.
Point being: if we rebuild alignment to allow someone to be "Chaotic Lawful" (or vice-versa), not only do we get some useful distinctions out of it, we might even address at least one of the many problems with the nine-square grid.
