Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
nothing to see here said: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.
nothing to see here said:Best 'alignment' approach I've ever seen was Alternity's three categories..."Motivation / Moral Attitue / Character Traits"...
blargney the second said:The title of the thread made me think of expanding the alignment axes:
Exalted-Good-Neutral-Evil-Vile
Canonical-Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic-Entropic
JamesDJarvis said: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.
John Morrow said: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.
Roman said: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.
Korimyr the Rat said:I don't know-- I can easily see blasphemous-lawful-neutral, being relatively easily defined as such myself.
Roman said: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...
fusangite said: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?