Alignment Axis expansion

[BiggusGeekus]

The Pendragon RPG had a list of over a dozen "alignments" that scaled from 1-20. Sometimes you would have to make a check against them. So the GM could ask you to make a "Love" or "Piety" check and if you failed it (or passed depending on your perspective) your character would act in a loving or pious fashion.

Re: the -50 to 50 scale. The game Kult had a scale such as that and when you got to the max of 20 you became officially quite weird. Saintlike or deviant depending which way you went. 20 was a bit beyond what we would consider human maximum. Of course, Kult being what it was, the actual scale went into the hundreds....

 

[Michael_G]

What about an aggression alignment?

Aggressive/Militant <-----> Passive/Peaceful

I've given it some thought in the past.
I think It works pretty well with the standard alignments.

Examples of the three axes alignment:

Crusader/Paladin (Lawful/Good/Aggressive)
Conqueror (Lawful/Evil/Aggressive)
Social Parasite (Lawful/Evil/Passive)
Liberator/Freedom Fighter (Chaotic/Good/Aggressive)
Destroyer (Chaotic/Evil/Aggressive)
Egotistical Coward (Chaotic/Evil/Passive)
Healer (Neutral/Good/Passive)
Tyrant (Lawful/Evil/Neutral)

Of course trying to come up with one-two word discriptions for 27 alignments is not easy and some discriptions could be used in more then one place depending on you point of view.

I also thought of a simple cosmology using the three alignment axes.
The outer planes would consist of a "great sphere." The equator would resemble the standard cosmology with good, chaos, evil, and law arranged evenly and opposite of their opposing alignment. One "pole" would be a plane of eternal war where the armies of good and evil, law and chaos fought, it would also take the place of the Blood War, though I'm sure Demons and Devils would still kill each other. The opposite "pole" would be a place of pacifists, cowards, intellectuals, artists and hedonists.

Neutral and extreme alignments would exist between the "true" alignments wherever it made sense. If true neutrality was not a force of its own and simply represented creatures that lacked conviction then they could be anywhere. Alternatively, if true neutrality was a force of its own then the "great sphere" could be flipped inside out, with "spokes" extending towards the center where true neutrality resided (hope that makes sense).

Oh....and this is my first post, Hi!

 

[Andor]

Useful alignement axes...

Republican <> Democrat (Just kidding!)
Slob <> Neat freak (aka Felix <> Oscar)
Metrosexual <> Ungroomed (also aka Felix <> Oscar)
Guiness <> Miller Light
SUV <> Moped
Cat Person <> Dog Person
PC User <> Mac User
Coke <> Pepsi
Gamer <> Jock
TV <> Books
Rolemaster <> Fudge

Used all at once you could have a Lawful, Good, Green party, Anal Retentive, Unkempt, Coors swilling, Harley Riding, Dog loving, Atari using, Coke drinking, Jock, Sitcom fan, WoD playing Paladin.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

The following was something I installed on my character sheets for a little while when we decided to focus a little more on alignments. It is the standard dual moral/ethical axes but presented slightly differently - on a 2d set of axes.

On the left to right axis, you have law - neutral - chaos and on the top to bottom you have good - neutral - evil. What is perhaps slightly different is that as you venture up and left, the ranges of behaviour become more and more restrictive. It ended up looking something like this (except more a square than a rectangle):


LG LG NG NG NG CG CG CG CG
LG LG NG NG NG CG CG CG CG
LN LN NN NN NN CN CN CN CN
LN LN NN NN NN CN CN CN CN
LN LN NN NN NN CN CN CN CN
LE LE NE NE NE CE CE CE CE
LE LE NE NE NE CE CE CE CE
LE LE NE NE NE CE CE CE CE
LE LE NE NE NE CE CE CE CE

What players would then do is draw a rounded blob that encompassed the generic range of expected behaviours for their character. This system just seemed to give a little bit more flexibility to the overly rigid and simplistic d20 system.

***​

Of note though is that we barely give any consideration to alignment anymore except for certain game specific elements - spells affecting good/evil/lawful or chaotic creatures. In all honesty, the game has not suffered one iota. If anything, it has allowed players to focus more on what their characters would do rather than what they should do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Roman]

What about an aggression alignment?

Aggressive/Militant <-----> Passive/Peaceful

I've given it some thought in the past.
I think It works pretty well with the standard alignments.

Examples of the three axes alignment:

Crusader/Paladin (Lawful/Good/Aggressive)
Conqueror (Lawful/Evil/Aggressive)
Social Parasite (Lawful/Evil/Passive)
Liberator/Freedom Fighter (Chaotic/Good/Aggressive)
Destroyer (Chaotic/Evil/Aggressive)
Egotistical Coward (Chaotic/Evil/Passive)
Healer (Neutral/Good/Passive)
Tyrant (Lawful/Evil/Neutral)

Of course trying to come up with one-two word discriptions for 27 alignments is not easy and some discriptions could be used in more then one place depending on you point of view.

I also thought of a simple cosmology using the three alignment axes.
The outer planes would consist of a "great sphere." The equator would resemble the standard cosmology with good, chaos, evil, and law arranged evenly and opposite of their opposing alignment. One "pole" would be a plane of eternal war where the armies of good and evil, law and chaos fought, it would also take the place of the Blood War, though I'm sure Demons and Devils would still kill each other. The opposite "pole" would be a place of pacifists, cowards, intellectuals, artists and hedonists.

Neutral and extreme alignments would exist between the "true" alignments wherever it made sense. If true neutrality was not a force of its own and simply represented creatures that lacked conviction then they could be anywhere. Alternatively if true neutrality was a force of its own then the "great sphere" could be flipped inside out, with "spokes" extending towards the center where ture neutrality resided (hope that makes sense).

Oh....and this is my first post, Hi!

Welcome to EN World!

I like the agression/militancy versus passivity/peacefulness axis!

 

[Michael_G]

Welcome to EN World!

I like the agression/militancy versus passivity/peacefulness axis!

Thanks.



Out of curiosity, does anyone know why lawful <-> chaotic is called such?
To me it'd make more sense to refer to them as lawful <-> anarchy or order <-> chaos.


Another idea of mine would be to use a different set of alignments for nations and maybe races.
These would be:
Democratic <-> Tyranny
Free <-> Restricted
Militant <-> Peaceful

Definitions:
Democratic - will of the majority rules
Tyranny - will of the one, or few, rules
Free - the government says what is illegal, otherwise you can do it
Restricted - the government says what is legal, otherwise you cannot do it
Militant - a willingness to launch aggressive wars into other lands
Peaceful - a refusal to do anything militarily other then defend ones own land, maybe not even that

Of course nations are complex animals, you could have a nation where the citizens(perhaps determined by those who have sereved in the military) live in a free, democratic socitey, where as noncitizens live in a restricted, tyranny.

You could throw in other alignments for nations as well, like:
patriotic <-> unpatriotic(can't think of a better term)
how much people within a nation love or hate it
traditionalist <-> progressive
how much people are unwilling or willing to except change

Thought? Concerns?

 

[reanjr]

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.

I can definitely see Dishonorable-Lawful-Good. Think of it as the difference between the Knight Protector of the kingdom (Honorable Lawful Good) and the Royal Investigator who sneaks around and intimidates people to find the bad guys (Dishonorable Lawful Good).

 

[reanjr]

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?

Saying that new alignment axes have to affect the current ones implies that the current ones can completely define a character's personality.

 

[reanjr]

Speaking out against either a popular religion or against one's own religion. In general, being skeptical and possibly dismissive of the claims of other religions, unless dictated to do so by your own faith.

Divorced from religion, blasphemy could be viewed as vocal opposition to the Truth as presented by those in power. Without veering too far into the realm of politics, someone who does not accept the public statements of their society's leaders and loudly proclaims them to be false would be blasphemous.

In a very general sense, blasphemy is opposition to ideology-- either to the ruling ideology or to ideology in general.

Maybe rename it a little and make it the character's belief in religion in general. Less culturally specific then. I don't think that quite fits blasphemous, but it might be workable.

As for your suggestion of making it political, I suppose it could in that context as well, but I think the terminology gives the wrong impression. Piety and blasphemy seem to imply religion.

 

[reanjr]

But don't lawful+good=honourable+pious?

Going back to my previous idea. The Kingdom of Goodness ruled by King Great. It has dissadents and cultists that need to be removed. So King Great hires this sneaky (dishonorable) investigator who has a good heart (good) and believes in the King and the rule of the people (lawful). He also happens to be fervently atheist (blasphemous), but as his job is secular, the King is willing to overlook this.