What Alternatives Are There For Alignments... ?

[Hand of Evil]

I think everyone knows my soap box.

For me it is defining evil in my games, it builds the world myth. This is the most common belief for the campaign area and share them with my players. This is two fold, one it lets the players know what is evil, it is a line in the sand, as the players/NPC, those acts build. Two, redemption, if a player/NPC performs an act of evil, they can ask for redemption and forgiveness for that taint.

The problem with aligment is that everyone looks at it with current ideas and try to apply them to a fantasy game.

 

[dave_o]

I really dig how this system works, thus far. I can see the myriad Detect Evil/Law/Good/Chaos spells being changed to one, beautiful Detect Aura spell.

PLEASE, PLEASE DO A FULL WRITE-UP? Be sure to include suggestions on how to create additonal flaws/virtues.

 

[Azlan]

I really dig how this system works, thus far. I can see the myriad Detect Evil/Law/Good/Chaos spells being changed to one, beautiful Detect Aura spell.

Right. A person's aura (which is the overall rating of his combined virtues & vices) is either gray, light gray, dark gray, black, or white. (Actually, there could be subtle shades in between these, but for game purposes, we'll just use these five auras.)

About 50% of a world's population rates as gray; 20%, as light gray; 20%, as dark gray; 5%, as black; and 5%, as white. This would be a fairly balanced world, as far as auras go. However, if a given world was, say, undergoing an age of "darkness" (such as Earth during WWII), then the mix might be 50% gray, 15% light gray, 25% dark gray, 7% black, and 3% white.

In any case, even the extremes of "white" and "black" do not necessarily equate as "good" and "evil".

See, while a person's aura will give a overall indicator for that person's pre-disposition in life, you can't totally judge him based upon that. For example, a person with a "dark gray" aura could be a dangerous villain; then again, he could instead be just a petty criminal or even simply an unscrupulous commoner.

As a further example, a half-orc beggar with a "dark gray" aura could be a wretched alcoholic who is anarchistic, irresponsible, and lascivious. But maybe this guy is also fairly charitable (he shares what meager spare change he gets with a pair of old, homeless ladies who inhabit the streets with him). And while this guy may be in need of rehabilitation, he certainly isn't the kind of "evil" being that should be put to death by any paladin or crusader who happens to cross paths with him!

So, when a paladin detects a person's aura (which he will be able to do, replacing the paladin ability, "detect evil"), if he detect a dark gray or even a black aura, it won't necessarily give him a license to kill that person, since a person with a dark gray or even a black aura may still possess one or two redeeming qualities (i.e. "virtues").

It all depends on which virtues and vices are in the combination, and to what degree those certain virtues or vices are at.

 

[DMScott]

So, if I'm going to get rid of alignments, then I want a better alternative to replace it; an alternative that, through being more quantifying, is three-dimensional and multi-functional.

I don't see how your proposed system is any less two-dimensional than the PH system; if anything, by only having a single axis your system is even more restrictive. Your descriptions also encourage hairsplitting to get similar behaviour with a positive and negative score - for example, Carousing (-5) and Sociable (+5), or Gallant (+5) and Reckless (-5). Often, the difference between those pairs is only obvious after the fact.

 

[scholz]

I think the point system is interesting but could be misleading. A person might have a variety of minor vices and come out dark grey or black. The sadistic demon might have some virtues (careful, brave, pragmatic, temperate, etc) and come out light grey. If the aura was a tool for deciding who th paladin could whack (or who the Protection vs Dark protects against) you might have some problems. Of course, Alignments are pretty bad for that as well, but at least Han Solo is good (or neutral) and Darth Vader is evil.
I do think it would work well for roleplaying purposes though.

 

[Azlan]

Always nice to hear from someone who enjoys Pendragon!

BTW: I had Pendragon in mind when I first began formulating my "Virtues & Vices" system.

Say, does anyone here know what the new LotR RPG uses to define/determine character morals and ethics? I'd be interested to know.

 

[DMScott]

Say, does anyone here know what the new LotR RPG uses to define/determine character morals and ethics? I'd be interested to know.

So far as I can tell (only been through the book once), they don't. There's an edge/flaw system that can encapsulate some personality elements, but the majority aren't reflected in the mechanics. Instead, there's a couple of pages on the characteristics of heroes in Tolkien's writing and a note that PCs should share those characteristics.

 

[Azlan]

I think the point system is interesting but could be misleading. A person might have a variety of minor vices and come out dark grey or black. The sadistic demon might have some virtues (careful, brave, pragmatic, temperate, etc) and come out light grey.

An excellent observation. I am implementing measures to prevent this sort of thing.

For one, there is a fixed number of noteworthy traits (i.e. virtues and vices) that a single character has. Specifically, only 12 of the 36 virtues and corresponding vices are worth making note of, for any given character. Otherwise, the system could not only get unbalanced, it could get cumbersome as well.

For another, a character who has a vice cannot have the corresponding virtue, and visa versa, no matter how the modifiers are assigned. For example, a character cannot be both "greedy" and "charitable", even if you tried assigning the modifiers to where the character is more inclined toward one than the other, such as "greedy -10" and "charitable +5" (i.e. sometimes he's charitable, but most of the time he's greedy). It just doesn't work that way. Either he's greedy or he's charitable; if he's somewhere in between, then it's not a noteworthy trait.

If the aura was a tool for deciding who th paladin could whack (or who the Protection vs Dark protects against) you might have some problems. Of course, Alignments are pretty bad for that as well, but at least Han Solo is good (or neutral) and Darth Vader is evil.

That's just it: A paladin should NOT wack someone based solely on that person's aura! (Yes, this makes roleplaying a paladin more complicated... but that's part of the intent, here.)

 

[Azlan]

Your descriptions also encourage hairsplitting to get similar behaviour with a positive and negative score - for example, Carousing (-5) and Sociable (+5), or Gallant (+5) and Reckless (-5). Often, the difference between those pairs is only obvious after the fact.

Perhaps. But so? Oftentimes, a person's virtues and vices (merits and flaws, strengths and weaknesses, or whatever you want to call them) go hand-in-hand.

Still, it's possible for a person to be, say, sociable without being carousing. (Respectable politicians and religious leaders come to mind.) And while perhaps most persons who are gallant also tend to be reckless, it doesn't have to that way for everyone. (D'Artagnan of the Three Musketeers is both gallant and reckless. Qui-Gon of the Phantom Menace is gallant, but certainly not reckless.)

 

[Nightfall]

I personally think you'd find Book of Hallowed Might's point alignment system very nice. You can still have good/evil and law/chaos, but instead of just lawful good, you can have a paladin that believes in ideal of a working hierarchy as well as working for the good of all, but he won't support despotism since that's not for the common good.