Alignment Axis expansion

[Roman]

The question of alignment is controversial on these boards and I do not want to reopen the discussion on the matter. I would, however, like to enquire whether any of you have expanded the alignment system to include other axis apart from the 'moral' axis and the 'ethical' axis with Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos? If you have added another axis (or more than one) what was it and how well did the expanded system work?

 

[JamesDJarvis]

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.

 

[diaglo]

stick to the 3 alignment system

Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic

 

[twofalls]

Nah. I've toyed around with getting rid of the alignment system altogether, but its such an integral part of the game that I just settled for making a distinction between supernatural and mundane for spell effects. Magical creatures are supernatural and can be identified with divination spells that reveal evil, alignments, etc. Mundanes are the PC races, non-magical humanoids (for example a goblin wizard is a non-magical humanoid, but a winged goblin with innate spell abilities is a magical humanoid). That way roleplaying is enhanced as Paladins must actually talk with others and interact with them rather than detecting evil, pulling out a sword and charging.

 

[nothing to see here]

Alternity version

Best 'alignment' approach I've ever seen was Alternity's three categories..."Motivation / Moral Attitue / Character Traits"...I'm convinced that any and every fantasy archtype you can think of can be covered the listed variations of those three subtypes. Mind you, they're not exactly an axix, but they are very easy to use. Back when my group played, we used the M/MA/CT distinction for alignment, with a subsystem similar to twofalls for magical effects.

 

[eris404]

I've been thinking about using the taint rules from UA in place of alignments. I sort of like the idea of certain magics being very corrupt and palpably evil.

 

[blargney the second]

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

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

Vile could also be replaced with Very Very Naughty. I suppose Canonical could also be replaced with RAWful. *wink*
-blarg

 

[Brain]

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

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

Vile could also be replaced with Very Very Naughty. I suppose Canonical could also be replaced with RAWful. *wink*
-blarg

I like this idea.


"RAWful" makes me ROFL. *can hear the groaning*

 

[Aethelstan]

Less is more. Try junking the alignment system altogether. You would miss it.

 

[John Morrow]

The question of alignment is controversial on these boards and I do not want to reopen the discussion on the matter. I would, however, like to enquire whether any of you have expanded the alignment system to include other axis apart from the 'moral' axis and the 'ethical' axis with Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos? If you have added another axis (or more than one) what was it and how well did the expanded system work?

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".

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.

Personally, I'm pretty happy with the two axis model, though.