Alignment Axis expansion

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Best 'alignment' approach I've ever seen was Alternity's three categories..."Motivation / Moral Attitue / Character Traits"...

I'm passing fond of d20 Modern's Allegiance system, as well.

 

[Captain NeMo]

I think the allignment system should be kept as it is for the sake of simplicity. If you prefer to RP alignment out (like me) than do so, and keep your "CN" and "LG" as reminders on your character sheet. I see it as a simple way for determing the odd paladin spell and rules mechanic's outcome.

Oh yeah, the allegience system is pretty cool as well.

 

[Roman]

The title of the thread made me think of expanding the alignment axes:

Exalted-Good-Neutral-Evil-Vile
Canonical-Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic-Entropic

Although this was not what I was trying to ask I certainly do like it. You could even have each axis subdivided into 101 (or some other number) points on a scale. Something like this :

-50.... -40.... -30.... -20.... -10.... 0.... 10.... 20.... 30.... 40.... 50

0 is neutral
-50 is one end of the alignment axi
50 is another end of the alignment axis

 

[Roman]

I've toyed with it but never been brave enough to really give it a go.

Honor <-> Dishonorable

Pious <-> Blasphemous

Stuff like that. At first brush things like Blasphemous-Lawful-Good sound unworkable but faiths have schisms and new churches get founded.
Dishonorable-Lawful-Good i'm not to keen on.

Hmm, the idea is not bad, but as you point out dishonourable-lawful-good does not work very well and I think neither does blasphemous-lawful-good.

 

[Roman]

I'd personally like a sort of "Nature vs. Nurture" axis which would indicate whether the other two alignment elements are inborn and unalterable, the product of a strong tendency, or a matter of choice or upbringing. Another way of thinking of it might be "intensity".

I think this is good, but would be better served as a different 'mechanic' than another axis of alignment.

A good real-world division might be whether justice for the character is a matter of ends (results) or means (opportunity). That would let you model some real world political positions.

This could be pretty interesting. Not easy to integrate into the metaphysical level of D&D alignment though.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Hmm, the idea is not bad, but as you point out dishonourable-lawful-good does not work very well and I think neither does blasphemous-lawful-good.

I don't know-- I can easily see blasphemous-lawful-neutral, being relatively easily defined as such myself.

 

[Roman]

I don't know-- I can easily see blasphemous-lawful-neutral, being relatively easily defined as such myself.

How would you define blasphemous than in the context of D&D alignment (that means not tied to one specific religion)? I may have the wrong impression about the word...

 

[JamesDJarvis]

How would you define blasphemous than in the context of D&D alignment (that means not tied to one specific religion)? I may have the wrong impression about the word...

Blasphemous characters actively speak/act against the precepts of a popular relegion in the campaign. Admitedly it is easier to see this functioning in a campaign with a single pantheon of gods or a monotheistic system. Piety is a relative to the camapign sort of like good and evil and it would only be worht keeping track of in a campaign with a whole lot of attention paid to the practice of campaign relegions.

 

[fusangite]

Can I ask: do the systems people are proposing also change what the current alignment categories mean? If not, how do additional axes/rows/columns interact with the current system?

 

[Roman]

Can I ask: do the systems people are proposing also change what the current alignment categories mean? If not, how do additional axes/rows/columns interact with the current system?

I guess, using JamesDJarvis proposal as an example, alignments would mesh normally. For example there could be:

Honourable Pious Lawful Good