Recommend Alternative Alignment Systems

[dreaded_beast]

I picked up a used copy of "The Book of Hallowed Might" specifically because I noticed a section on "alternate alignment system".

I liked how it was presented and will probably use it, but I wish it would have gone more in depth beyond a page-and-half or 2 pages.

Any suggestions?

 

[conanb]

Graphical Alignment

I've been wanting to try an alternate alignment system based on points.
One for each axis of the alignment grid that DnD has mapped out.
Basically they have two axis for their alignment system, Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil.
Neutral in this system would be as close to 0,0 as possible. Lawful, Good numbers would be positive, and Chaotic,Evil would be negative. This would mean a Lawful good paladin might be 88,76 while a good hearted farmer might be 24,12. Both digits on a range from 100 to -100. Every action has a simple point value assigned by the Dm. So if you slaughter some innocents then you're good/evil axis might drop -20 points. Breaking the law would shift your Lawful/Chaotic axis down -10 points. Etc. This would make a more fluid alignment system but still adhere to all the spells and abilities laid out in D&D.
It also allows you to graph characters alignments on a chart, which is kind of cool. That was my original intention, but found that a fluid alignment system changed the dynamic of the game a little bit. Now every action was a lot more important for those characters that need to have an alignment to keep their powers. Good characters needed to focus more on being good and the ramifcations of their actions. Etc. Led to moral/Ethical debates about character actions. Just an idea. Haven't run a long term game with it. It may be a bad one.
-Alex P

 

[Warden]

I've been trying to work on a book about alignment, expanding the principles beyond the page-and-a-half provided in the PHB, but it's more difficult to put to paper in a readable form than I had originally considered. That, and some of the ideas I presented caused some of my playtesters to angrily detest and drop out of the project.

But I didn't know that the Book of Hallowed Might had an alternate alignment system. I'll have to check that out.

 

[Angcuru]

I like this idea of a graph-bases system. Seems very flexible and game oriented instead of static traditional alignment. I think they use something similar in NWN.

 

[Terwox]

conanb's system sounds much like Neverwinter's system, except neverwinters ranges from 0 to 100 instead of -100 to 100.

I've used something like that before -- the party started as true neutral amnesiacs, and whenever they did something suitably good/evil lawful/chaotic, they got a point. Once they got enough points, they started showing an affinity to that alignment. The cleric was a philosophy cleric, though, this would be harder if you're trying to use it for normal D&D alignment stuff. Although, it's also kinda nice, I'd think -- bards have to not act lawful, barbarians can't either -- just like how everyone is very sure paladins MUST be lawful good.
I think it's a good thing that it makes people think about their archetype -- and might lead to multiclassing. In a friend's campaign, another play had a halfling monk that was slowly becoming a barbarian because of his increasingly erratic and anger-driven actions.

 

[Psion]

There's Dragonlords of Melnibone.

There is no good or evil.

Law, Balance, and Chaos are all separate alleigances, and you can have ratings in all of them. Like Elric who was known to act on law's behalf from time to time, but was primarily a chaos dupe.


Another way that is sort of nifty and flexible is the d20 modern alleigance system.

 

[Savage Jim]

There's Dragonlords of Melnibone.

There is no good or evil.

Law, Balance, and Chaos are all separate alleigances, and you can have ratings in all of them. Like Elric who was known to act on law's behalf from time to time, but was primarily a chaos dupe.

Allegiance and Apotheosis.

Great system. It's the one I use.

 

[Silveras]

My Take

My take on alignments is located here. You can download an Excel spreadsheet template that I use for alignments in my game here.

The system I use is numeric and graph-based. I use numbers from -15 to +15 rating opposing Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic tendencies. Characters choose between 2 and 5 of each (Ethical: Law/Chaos, Moral: Good/Evil). The numeric scores are summed and divided by 3. The results are 2 values for a co-ordinate on a graph (arbitrarily, Law and Evil are "-" numbers, Good and Chaos are "+"). The numbers are kept low for a couple of reasons:

1) The tendency scores serve as dandy bases for DCs of "Temptation" checks; can Bob's Paladin resist his arrogant flaw when someone provokes him and an Evil cleric is using diplomacy to lure him on ?

2) The tendency scores also make good bases for "opposed tendency checks". I have occasionally had players tell me their characters were conflicted about what to do; said players have sometimes rolled a die to resolve the conflict. These numbers, in this scale, provide a reasonable basis for this when the player insists.

 

[mythusmage]

What I'm seeing here are not alternate alignment systems, but different ways of keeping track of standard alignment. Interesting and useful, but not really what was asked for.

So I now present a system first presented in the Dangerous Journeys: Mythus rules.

Here there are five alignments, each known as an Ethos. While they range from mostly good to mostly evil, each is not exclusively good or evil, ordered or disordered. While the Ethos of Sunlight is mostly benign, there can still be creatures of fell nature found within, for even sunlight can blight and destroy. Whereas the Ethos of Gloomy Darkness can provide a blanket of cooling darkness, and allow for restful, healing sleep.

The five Ethoi are:

Sunlight: Life, healing, aid for others. Also the withering light of the harsh midday sun. Without it nothing could grow. But too much means death.

Moonlight: Nature, growing things. Also the darkness of the deep forest, the wolf bringing down the calf. This is the ethos of the farmer and the druid, both people closely tied to the land and the cycles and rhythms there of.

Balance: Pretty self explanatory. A militant Ethos dedicated to ensuring that no one has an undue advantage over another.

Shadowy Darkness: The Ethos of trickery, deceit, and cunning. The Ethos of cleverness and resourcefulness. It is the ethos followed by those who would gull the naive into thoughtless deeds, and the ethos of those who would strike against tyrants when those tyrants have the advantage.

Gloomy Darkness: Death, despair. The cool of the night after a harsh, burning day. It can hide the foul from those who would destroy it. It can hide the fair from those who would destroy it.

Each has its general tendencies. Each also has ways in which it belies, even contradicts the popular image. A follower of Shadowy Darkness can be honest, one of Sunlight cruel. But the general tendency is to follow the herd.

So there you have an alternate alignment system.

 

[Conaill]

I totally do not see any need for an alignment system whatsoever. That always seemed one of the most moronic parts of D&D to me...