Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
This is the barebones of an idea that a few of us started to hash out over on the general boards while discussing Pendragon (for those not familiar with this system, you can go HERE to get a general idea of the background for this topic).
Basically, Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil are recorded together as opposed values. The sum of the values in each set totals 20--therefore, if one value should rise, the other will fall a like amount (and vice versa). For example, a character with a value of 17 Good would have a corresponding value of 3 in Evil. If this same character should later have his Good drop to 13, his Evil will rise to 7.
The alignment choices for beginning characters result in the following values...
LAW vs CHAOS
GOOD vs EVIL
So a Neutral Good character would look like this...
10 Lawful/Chaotic 10 (Neutral)
15 Good/Evil 5 (Good)
I would suggest that the ranges for the various values be something along the lines of the following...
Having 13 or greater in a value grants the applicable alignment aspect.
If neither value in an opposed pair is greater than 12, the applicable alignment is considered to be "Neutral".
When checking for alignment shifts at the end of an adventure you could make one roll versus each value for every "check" accumulated next to it. These "checks" are assigned by the DM for the various actions the characters take that may affect alignment.
To raise a value by one point, roll greater than the current value on 1d20.
You will note that this means it becomes ever more difficult to attain "perfection", and ever easier to fall away from it (this is true whether your idea of perfection is one of perfect good, or of perfect evil).
The next issue that needs to be tackled is the awarding of these "checks". The DM can simply assign them according to his own judgment (assigning multiple checks for particularly noteworthy or notorious acts, while only assigning a single check, if any, to more minor ones). The DM could even construct a table, appropriate to his campaign, that assigns fixed numbers of "checks" to various actions.
Alternatively, a random number of "checks" could be assigned, dependent upon the magnitude of the act. For example...
Trivial: d6-5 Checks
Minor: d6-3 Checks
Noteworthy: d6 Checks
Major: d8 Checks
Life Altering: d10 Checks
...or whatever values are appropriate for your campaign.
I think this is a nice option that keeps characters from being too sure about what they can afford to get away with.
Well, I think that's enough to get the ball rolling
...
(Quick Edit: Had a HORRIBLY contradictory statement in there--hope this quick patch job worked
)
Basically, Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil are recorded together as opposed values. The sum of the values in each set totals 20--therefore, if one value should rise, the other will fall a like amount (and vice versa). For example, a character with a value of 17 Good would have a corresponding value of 3 in Evil. If this same character should later have his Good drop to 13, his Evil will rise to 7.
The alignment choices for beginning characters result in the following values...
LAW vs CHAOS
- Lawful: 15 Lawful/Chaotic 5
- Neutral: 10 Lawful/Chaotic 10
- Chaotic: 5 Lawful/Chaotic 15
GOOD vs EVIL
- Good: 15 Good/Evil 5
- Neutral: 10 Good/Evil 10
- Evil: 5 Good/Evil 15
So a Neutral Good character would look like this...
10 Lawful/Chaotic 10 (Neutral)
15 Good/Evil 5 (Good)
I would suggest that the ranges for the various values be something along the lines of the following...
Having 13 or greater in a value grants the applicable alignment aspect.
If neither value in an opposed pair is greater than 12, the applicable alignment is considered to be "Neutral".
When checking for alignment shifts at the end of an adventure you could make one roll versus each value for every "check" accumulated next to it. These "checks" are assigned by the DM for the various actions the characters take that may affect alignment.
To raise a value by one point, roll greater than the current value on 1d20.
You will note that this means it becomes ever more difficult to attain "perfection", and ever easier to fall away from it (this is true whether your idea of perfection is one of perfect good, or of perfect evil).
The next issue that needs to be tackled is the awarding of these "checks". The DM can simply assign them according to his own judgment (assigning multiple checks for particularly noteworthy or notorious acts, while only assigning a single check, if any, to more minor ones). The DM could even construct a table, appropriate to his campaign, that assigns fixed numbers of "checks" to various actions.
Alternatively, a random number of "checks" could be assigned, dependent upon the magnitude of the act. For example...
Trivial: d6-5 Checks
Minor: d6-3 Checks
Noteworthy: d6 Checks
Major: d8 Checks
Life Altering: d10 Checks
...or whatever values are appropriate for your campaign.
I think this is a nice option that keeps characters from being too sure about what they can afford to get away with.
Well, I think that's enough to get the ball rolling
...(Quick Edit: Had a HORRIBLY contradictory statement in there--hope this quick patch job worked
)
Last edited:
I too like what I see!
) soon.
)...
): Goodness, Neutrality, Evilness. There's no law or chaos. Just the three main aspects. Each player, at the beginning of their "career", choose the main alignment, and they start at the center of their third of segment. After each session (or adventure or campaign) the DM decide in which direction the Character moved (if he moved, of course). A knight of solamnia who leaves the good part of the segment must atone; a wizard loose the connection with his moon and has to turn back to his "philosophy" or enter in the new order (white, red or black robes).
