Got Alignments?

Blue Prussian

First Post
Hey everyone,

I just had a thought/question, and I'm sure that it is something that has come up before. So here it goes...Theoretically, alignment is meant to develop characters' personalities. Personally, I've watched a majority of players use alignment in place of a personality (and DM's have been known to bludgeon players with the alignment hammer as well). What can be done about this?

I noticed in the alignment thread (in general discussion) that a "Palladium Alignment System" was favored by some of the posters. What is that system?

Lastly, do any of you have your own systems? I don't like the idea of just junking the idea of alignment, because I think the premise of helping the description and development of a character's personality through some sort of system makes sense. If you did change things up, how did you deal with spells and items that are alignment-dependent? With that, I'll shut up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Regarding helping players with personality development:
A DM I played with would make us develop personality quirks for our characters (e.g. avid knitter, wanting to be a hairdresser, a pet goat, accents, a fear of water, compulsive lying, etc.). In conjunction with alignments, I've found it works well.

In particular, it helps quickly add flavor to new characters before they have a chance to accumulate depth from campaigning. It also helps you think about how your character is atypical -- in contrast to alignments, which help you think about how your character is typical. You just have to watch that the players don't start leaning on the quirks too much.

He also had a page of suggestion questions such as "what's your character's favorite food?", "if your character were a movie star, who would it be", etc. I think I've lost the sheet now, but you get the idea.

Anyway, it's my experience that when players spend time trying to develop a personality for their character and end up with alignment caricatures, it's because they confuse history with personality. They spend effort figuring out what happened to their characters, but don't really flesh out how their characters act and feel and think and speak. So when it comes game time and they have to do those things, they have to lean on the alignments since it's the only bit of the personality that's really gelled.

Regarding Alignments:
I don't know the Palladium system, but I've been tossing around an idea for a while which involves combining elements with alignments:

Physical -
Fire (heat, flames, quickness, temper) / Water (cold, water, malleability)
Earth (rock, metal, earth, solidity) / Air (air, wind, sound, flight, etherealness, weather)
Mental -
Truth (light, divination, telepathy, understanding, sciences) / illusion (darkness, illusion, fantasy, charm, art)
animus (nature, animal, plant, wildnerness) / artifice (technology, constructs, civilization)
or
mana (energy, magic, enchantment, lighning) / void (emptiness, abjuration, planes, dispel magic, enervation)
Spiritual - (you're familiar with this one);
order/chaos
good/evil

Anyway, each of the alignments has associated spells, abilities, elemental creatures, and personality implications. Implementation isn't too tedious/difficult. I'd suggest player characters only have a spiritual alignment, but they can have mental and physical tendencies for the purposes of developing character. Other races may have physical and mental alignments (for example, some fey may be animus/illusion, or standard fire elementals would be fire elementals, etc). Adding the mental alignments means coming up with new spells/items/creatures or declaring that existing ones are aligned under the new system, but it means you don't have to worry about changing and rebalancing existing ones significantly.

As an example, a chaotic good character that has a truth and animus tendencies might be about life, independence, being true to yourself, appreciating the existing world without trying to impose an artificial order on it, etc. Whereas a chaotic good character that tended toward illusion and artifice might be more about storytelling, fantasy, unpredictability, disguises, etc. Chaotic good and air might be a daredevil who loves going fast, feeling the wind on his cheek, and watching tornadoes. Chaotic good and earth might be fascinated with exploring underground passages, geologically active regions, and learn stoneshape. Anyway, the exercise of thinking about the how the character tends in the other alignments can help add complexity to the character. I started exploring it mostly from the magic stand-point, but this reply is already so long, I think I won't go into that here. Hope this helps.
 

The Palladium system is nearly the same as the D&D alignments, with some explanatory mumbo-jumbo that indicates that the author of that system didn't understand "neutral" used within the context of D&D.
 

aurance said:
The Palladium system is nearly the same as the D&D alignments, with some explanatory mumbo-jumbo that indicates that the author of that system didn't understand "neutral" used within the context of D&D.

I always thought Palladium's alignment system made sense, at least vs. 1e D&D. I believe 2e made such a fuss about explaining alignments in more detail in part because of Palladium's version. And I don't think ANYBODY understood True Neutral in 1e D&D. :p

The best way to deal with alignment is not to use it at all. Call of Cthulhu d20 has no alignment, nor does Spycraft, and Conan replaces it with *optional* codes of honor you can adhere to (providing a generous +3 bonus to Will saves as a reward for the code's limiting your freedom to act, the bonus remaining so long as you stick to your code).
 
Last edited:

cathyb said:
Regarding Alignments:
I don't know the Palladium system, but I've been tossing around an idea for a while which involves combining elements with alignments:

Physical -
Fire (heat, flames, quickness, temper) / Water (cold, water, malleability)
Earth (rock, metal, earth, solidity) / Air (air, wind, sound, flight, etherealness, weather)
Mental -
Truth (light, divination, telepathy, understanding, sciences) / illusion (darkness, illusion, fantasy, charm, art)
animus (nature, animal, plant, wildnerness) / artifice (technology, constructs, civilization)
or
mana (energy, magic, enchantment, lighning) / void (emptiness, abjuration, planes, dispel magic, enervation)
Spiritual - (you're familiar with this one);
order/chaos
good/evil

An excellent idea, as long as it is followed loosely, may I also suggest changing mental to metaphysical, and that you allow me to steal it?

When you say 'or' do you mean instead of or one from this column, and one from that?
 

Ferret said:
An excellent idea, as long as it is followed loosely, may I also suggest changing mental to metaphysical, and that you allow me to steal it?

That's a thought; Feel free to steal. Let me know how it works out for you.

Ferret said:
When you say 'or' do you mean instead of or one from this column, and one from that?

The 'or' meant I hadn't decided whether I preferred animus/artifice or mana/void as the second mental (or metaphysical) alignment duality.

As an aside, I'd also seriously considered growth/decay or life/death as possible dualities, but dropped them as overlapping too much with the other dualities after some playing around with the ideas. They are possible replacements for good/evil, but replacing that means heavier tinkering with the system than I think the idea warranted.

-C
 

..

Problem with alignment: it's taken too literally. Fact is, in D&D you need alignments or half the spells in the game don't work correctly.
 

cathyb said:
That's a thought; Feel free to steal. Let me know how it works out for you.

The 'or' meant I hadn't decided whether I preferred animus/artifice or mana/void as the second mental (or metaphysical) alignment duality.
-C

I can't see Mana/void replacing Animus/artifice. Maybe being a second choice. Maybe.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top