doctorhook
Legend
Thanks!That is a VERY good-looking alignment guide. And it provides good guidance in useful areas.
Actually, the specificity is completely by design. I want the descriptions to be crystal clear about my expectations of my players, and I want to encourage a heroic game, so I gave specific examples of appropriate behaviour for each alignment, and I phrased things to make evil seem as unpalatable to social-play as possible.BUT
I think it could gain from some clarifying adjustments. The alignment axes are very ethereal - so making statements about money (doing things "for free") and laws is perhaps too specific.
Also, you should use specific definitions of each term before going into the example-writing process. Case in point: I wouldn't include willingness to "harm" anyone in the definition of a "good" person - personal gain or otherwise.
As for good characters and willingness to cause harm, I definitely don't want my players to think that being good-aligned limits them to being cowardly or pacifist (read: boring). I included the caveat "(if anyone at all)" as a nod to the possibilities of pacifism, but when it comes to villains, I am completely okay with Lawful Good paladins kicking butt and taking names. I want my players to read the way I described the good alignments and feel empowered, not limited.
I like your chart, and I definitely designed mine with axes like these in mind. My chart has four criteria, two each for the good-evil and law-chaos spectrums. That said, like I mentioned above, I designed it to be specific on purpose, and I think speaking in abstractions would seriously undermine the effect I'm aiming for.You might get more mileage out of two scales: a goodness scale, and a lawfulness scale. Sort of like this:
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"] [TR] [TD]
[/TD] [TD]Min[/TD] [TD]Mid[/TD] [TD]Max[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Lawful[/TD] [TD]Unpredictable, can't be trusted[/TD] [TD]Somewhat trustworthy, follows certain rules[/TD] [TD]Predictable, follows a code[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Good[/TD] [TD]No regard for living things, max regard for self.[/TD] [TD]Cares for some living things, even more than self.[/TD] [TD]Holds all life forms as equal, some more than self.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So these are more abstract, so with a little thinking your PCs can apply them to more situations. And you can plant concepts like money and laws in there, by interpreting them as "rules" or part of a "code," OR caring for some living things - on the goodness scale - might mean respecting their rights to property.
Edit: Chaotic Neutral, in terms of this table, becomes a character who is unpredictable and cares for some creatures more than himself, and doesn't care for others. So, not someone you would want on guard duty, but if you know you're one of the people he cares about, then the CN character might still be useful in the party.
I used the word "often" for all of the evil alignments to emphasize that evil characters are intensely selfish and typically anti-social in the long run. I want to frame evil (especially chaotic evil) as anathema to cooperation generally and to long-term participation in an adventuring group specifically.I'd reduce NE to: " sometimes willing to harm friends .." Rather than often ...
Thanks, I'll look into that.Have you thought of using the alignment definitions from Palladium? I don't like most things about that game but I did like their alignment much better. There is no neutral alignments. There are various selfish alignments and examples from popular culture.
