My revision of Alignment and Personality, with Social Standing to boot

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm not entirely sure that I like the idea of social standing being attribute related... That would, in particular, not work very well for very stratified and rigidly separated societies where there is very little chance for one to change their social standing... or rather, it'd work, but it might muck around with some character concepts (a character born to a high social standing, but who is a completely useless git, for instance). I don't really have any suggestions as to how that could be improved, or whatever, but thought I'd point it out and see if you had any thoughts about it.

I'm also not sure that I see what you mean when you say that 'evil is easier than good.' I mean, I understand the concept, but I'm not seeing how that concept is being implemented, here. Could you elaborate?

Later
silver

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Right on. I was wondering if there was maybe some additional mechanic in effect that I wasn't seeing. I see that is, indeed, the case. Looks like good stuff, by the way.

Later
silver

 

[Felix]

Regarding Chaotic Neutral

This is the one point I thought I would raise with your post, considering it concerns my favorite of the alignments.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places the personal freedom of each individual. Whether these individual choices lead to good results or ill, and whether or not those individuals then take responsibility for what they do, is beside the point. Chaotic neutral creatures disregard all authority unless compelled. Chaotic neutral is almost always a transitory alignment; few creatures remain this alignment for long.

My argument would be that concern for the individual freedoms of a group (even if that group is the sum of all individuals) is anaethma to Chaotic characters. Lacking a moral compulsion of Good or Evil, I believe that Chaos pulls the individual's concerns relentlessly down to himself. He is not concerned with the freedoms of everyone, he is concerned with his own personal freedom; everyone else can see to their own problems.

He makes exceptions to this outlook towards others on a person-by-person basis. He will be faithful and loyal to his brother whom he loves, while not sacrificing anything of his own for the poor peasant family who is starving.

Indeed, because attitudes and actions are determined by interpersonal relationships, this alignment is well suited to small groups, where the survival of the family or clan depends upon a few who are willing to sacrifice themselves; but not because they belong to "humanity" or because they live in the Duchy of Belformar (as a Lawful Good character might), but because they're family and friends. At the same time, they'll not help the next clan over when a Lawful Good character might.

I think your definition of Chaotic Neutral does a disservice to the alignment, as it can be a dynamic and intriguing one, as well as one that can serve for a character's lifetime, and for a people's lifetime.

---

Lawful characters can gain the benefits of sharing up to three social feats through an organization. Chaotic characters can gain the benefits of but one, and those who are neutral with respect to law and chaos can gain the benefits of two. If changing alignment causes you to lose access to one or more shared social feats, you choose which feat(s) you retain access to.

Similarly, I recommend you not weight socal groups towards lawful. Chaotic does not mean, "will not organize", simply that the individual is as, if not more, important than the group. The nature of the groups will differ, though they both will exist.

Also, I advise against different mechanical benefits for different alignments.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Felix]

IME, most people who put CN on their character sheet either (1) desire to play CE without claiming to be evil, or (2) desire to play CG without being bogged down by claiming to be good.

I'm not suprised you feel that way considering that someone who's Neutral on the Good-Evil axis can do both Good and Evil deeds and keep their alignment. Nor is there a requirement for anyone to be nice in any alignment, and not-niceness frequently leads to folks thinking, "ooh, Evil".

is pretty well the definition of Chaotic Evil.

Except that Chaotic Evil enjoys the pain and suffering of others, and will go out of their way to cuase it. Chaotic Goods will go out of their way to assuage the pain and suffereing of others. Is it so hard to imagine that someone neither enjoys the pain and suffering of others nor is willing to sacrifice themselves without some other motivation? Someone travelling through the Dust Bowl in the 30's sure might feel bad for all those farmers without doing anything to help them because they have their own problems and their own family to care for. That's Neutral.

Yes, a chaotic evil person is concerned with himself, much like a chaotic neutral guy is. But while one will enjoy benefiting himself at other's expense, the other will not. There's so much room for motivation on the Chaos side of the axis and between Good and Evil, and you're turning it into a waystation. It's as bad as that horrible 2nd Edition description of "insane people are CN".

And if you're in for a folkloric Good v Evil campaign, then just cut to the chase and get rid of the Neutral alignment, or reserve it for animals and extraplanars. Force humanity to make a choice.

there should be a mechanical benefit for group cohesion and siding with good

Then award it for group cohesion, not for what someone has written on their character sheet. Lawful characters can be ever so disruptive when it comes to the funcitoning of a party, as much as Chaotic characters can. So if working together is what you want, then award the players for working together. Me writing "Lawful" doesn't mean I play nice with others.

Instead of luring players to do what you want them to do to fit into your campaign, try just telling them to create Good characters, either Lawful or NG, and be done with it. Nothing wrong with that, and you won't have any resentment because your mechanics don't reward a Chaotic Neutral (or other alignment) charcter, no matter how well he's played.

Right now, by the SRD, there is only a mechanical benefit for playing True Neutral, but a mechanical benefit does exist.

If it exists enough to both bold and italicize it, I must be blind. Surely you can't be talking about Neutral's immunity to things like Holy and Unholy swords...? Since Neutrals get whacked by all four of the Blasphemy, Holy Word, Order's Wrath, and Chaos Hammer spells. Among others.

In the SRD Chaotic does seem to mean "will not organize"

Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

The description of Chaotic includes this: "lets society benefit from the potential...". People must have personal freedom to do what they can do the best so that society may benefit. Society may benefit. It's not like Chaotics are saying "society is wrong", they're saying that each individual has within him the ability to improve society by acting in a manner that benefits himself first instead of acting "for the group". The benefits society reaps will be greatest when each individual works hard to get as far as he can with his own skills.

It absolutely does not say, "chaotics will not organize". And though you said you've changed that, you un-changed it when you rewarded Lawfuls with two social feats more than Chaotics.

If you're keen on social feats, which are an interesting idea, why don't you offer different social feats to Lawfuls that you do to Chaotics? Sure, the Lawful feats will be more group-oriented and the Chaotics more Individual-oriented, but that makes sense. Let Neutrals cherry pick twixt the two.

---

Put it this way, I'd be frustrated in a game where the DM wants my character to be a certain kind of character, but instead of telling me that, he just rewards the folks who do what he likes. If you came out and said, "Heroic campaign, LG and NG only", I'd say "ok, cool" and play along. What I wouldn't like is to come up with a really great CN Fighter/Bard who spent his youth on a sailing ship and sings sea chantys, only to have him weaker than the others because I didn't do what you wanted me to do.

I very much advise against steering your players in this manner.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Felix]

This weekend, perhaps, I'll add the social feat information here and see whether or not that affects your opinion. And, again, I really do appreciate your comments. Even "You Suck, RC!" is better than silence!

Well, then you may consider my well-thought out response to this and future posts forthcoming.