Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8642455" data-attributes="member: 5142">When I <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/designing-neutral-good-mechanics-for-alignment-in-dnd-and-ways-to-interact-with-it.688618/post-8641786" target="_blank">earlier</a> suggested using the Theros Piety system as a potential model for creating alignment mechanics, I indicated that I would use it to represent &quot;alignment&quot; rather than &quot;piety&quot; that was associated with a god(s). My interest would be in focusing on taking a side in the cosmological conflict that Alignment represents rather than gods. Moorcock, for example, doesn't care how many lords/gods of Chaos or Law there are. What matters is simply Law vs. Chaos. There are benefits to using the Piety System as a model: (a) it provides a point system, (b) the points gains/losses are tied to particular character actions, and (c) those point values can be tied to other mechanics. &nbsp;One could easily create a comparable Alignment system that functions along similar principles. Instead of Alignment being tied to vague notions of morality, it can be tied to actions that further the agenda of an Alignment's factions. How can a character further the cosmological agenda of Law through their actions? For example, a character's Law score may go up by killing/thwarting demons, slaad, and fey or even the minions of Chaos-aligned deities, but their Law score may go down for killing/thwarting archons, devils, and modrons. Moreover, the Piety System has a point value. As one increases in Piety, one also accesses new abilities associated with each God. That point system can be used to key-in a number of other Alignment systems (e.g., opposition heat, alignment-attuned magic items, special abilties, etc.). I do agree, particularly for the sake of simplicity, that characters should not be able to pledge themselves to more than one alignment, though they may be more nuanced with two (e.g., Chaotic Good).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8642455, member: 5142"] When I [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/designing-neutral-good-mechanics-for-alignment-in-dnd-and-ways-to-interact-with-it.688618/post-8641786']earlier[/URL] suggested using the Theros Piety system as a potential model for creating alignment mechanics, I indicated that I would use it to represent "alignment" rather than "piety" that was associated with a god(s). My interest would be in focusing on taking a side in the cosmological conflict that Alignment represents rather than gods. Moorcock, for example, doesn't care how many lords/gods of Chaos or Law there are. What matters is simply Law vs. Chaos. There are benefits to using the Piety System as a model: (a) it provides a point system, (b) the points gains/losses are tied to particular character actions, and (c) those point values can be tied to other mechanics. One could easily create a comparable Alignment system that functions along similar principles. Instead of Alignment being tied to vague notions of morality, it can be tied to actions that further the agenda of an Alignment's factions. How can a character further the cosmological agenda of Law through their actions? For example, a character's Law score may go up by killing/thwarting demons, slaad, and fey or even the minions of Chaos-aligned deities, but their Law score may go down for killing/thwarting archons, devils, and modrons. Moreover, the Piety System has a point value. As one increases in Piety, one also accesses new abilities associated with each God. That point system can be used to key-in a number of other Alignment systems (e.g., opposition heat, alignment-attuned magic items, special abilties, etc.). I do agree, particularly for the sake of simplicity, that characters should not be able to pledge themselves to more than one alignment, though they may be more nuanced with two (e.g., Chaotic Good). [/QUOTE]

Verification