A structured attempt at alignment

[fectin]

I like alignment.
Alignment is borked.
Let's fix that.

Classic biaxial alignments are broken in large part because they are incoherent. Most attempts to fix that fail, because most attempts to fix that try to make alignment coherent, and that is unpossible.
So, given that, how can we make an alignment system unbroken?

First, some requirements:
1) New alignment system shall be biaxial, like 3E D&D alignment (T) and should have the same form (O).
2) New alignment system shall accommodate different interpretations of alignment characteristics (T) and should be interpretation-agnostic (O).
3) New alignment system should support adventure hooks (O).
4) New alignment system shall be simply explainable (T), and should be useable without explanation (O).
5) New alignment system shall be compatible with 3E (T), and should be transparently compatible with 3E (O).

That look about right? I'm rolling on, but will check for comments before next post.

---

After some consideration, I'm adding the following:
6) New alignment system shall have associative, in-game effects (T).

[Occluded Sun]

I'm afraid I don't know what (T) and (O) mean in this context.

But if I may make the suggestion, the axes of the grid shouldn't be named after real-world moral concepts that are poorly defined and contentious. No 'good vs. evil'. Even 'law vs. chaos' is risky.

Also, if the system is usable without explanation, why require it to have simple explanations? Wouldn't they be redundant, and thus their complexity irrelevant? Just require that they be easy to understand, and acknowledge that a brief explanation will be required.

[caladfel]

What do the (O) and (T) notations mean?

A while ago, someone posted a very interesting (and usable) good-evil axis. It went:

Good: Selfless. You put the well being of others ahead of your own. I.e. If you are a poor peasant and have some food, you will feel inclined to share the little you have with other peasants (even if you would go hungry), even if you did not know who they were. If you are a warrior, you will be inclined to risk your life to beat up demons to protect the commoners that live in a random village you happened to be at the time it was attacked by said demons.

Neutral: Takes care of yourself and your own first. You tend to put the well being of your circle of friends/family/hobo squad ahead of other people you don't know. I.e. If you are a poor peasant and have some food, your first thought is be to make sure you have enough for yourself and/or family and, if you have enough, for your friends and that is it. If you are a warrior, you will feel inclined to fight to protect the village from demons if it is your village, or if you were hired to do it.

Evil: Look out for number one. You put your well being first, and screw the others. If you were a poor peasant and had a little food, your impulse would be to not share. If you were a warrior, your impulse would be to defend the village only if you had something to gain from it that were worth you risking your life against demons.

Alignment would be a guideline for your way of thinking. It would not stop you from acting in some specific way, but it is a measure of your conscience (i.e. if you are good you would be reluctant to be selfish at the expense of others, and even if you do it you would feel bad about it afterwards).

Again, this was already posted in these forums somewhere (and not by me), but it is a very nice way of handling the good and evil axis imo.

[fectin]

I'm working through this roughly along the systems engineering V, with the implementation I'm most familiar with. (T) is threshold, which you must hit for your solution to be good enough. (O) is objective, which is the highest amount of added performance that is useful. Using them here is a little cartoonish, but helps organize my thoughts.

@caladfel
That axis is only useable if you don't think about it too deeply. For quick example, where does an Auschwitz gate guard fall under that rubric? What about a eugenicist? A zombie pumping a village's water supply? What about adventurers who sack orc towns for treasure?

---

Thinking about those requirements:

Okay. Of these, (2) looks like the hard one, so I'll start there. I think that's probably addressable by dissociation, so 'lawful' actions have no relation to 'lawful' alignment. That's unsatisfying though, because then alignment is utterly meaningless (like it already is).

[Added (6) above].

That general approach seems fruitful though as long as 'chaos' has a defined and predictable in-game meaning, I don't see any reason it has to be strictly behavioral. So if we create a new fundamental force "chaos", then it can either have been named chaos because its adherents originally acted chaotically, or the word can be chaotic because those people are like chaos.

That leaves us three distinct things named "chaos" though, which doesn't really satisfy (4).

Okay. Instead, I'm going to steal some other opposing forces. Good/evil is easy: that's positive/negative energy. That forces all undead to be "evil" and all angels to be "good", but I think I'm okay with that. It also means that fallen angels are still "good", but I'm still okay with that. It also makes spells that interact with good/evil seem a lot saner. That just leaves justifying why positive energy channelers are stereotypically virtuous enough that their phlebotinum is "good" and vice versa. I think spontaneously healing/harming people around you helps that out, but lets kick it up a notch, and find a way that positive energy makes you pretty chill, and negative makes you an asshole.

I think I can do the same with Arcane/Divine prompting law/chaos. Arcane and divine need a better division anyway, so this can help there too. Arcane being chaotic already makes sense, because a wizard in his harem can be wildly individualist. So to build that dichotomy, Divine has to go the other way: divine spellcasting must be somehow communal. But that's basically already true for clerics, what with needing to keep their god happy or get cut off. That seems workable too.

That seems likely to hit everything, actually. Next up, implementation.

[fectin]

So, here's the plan:
- Most people have no alignment.
- Alignment refers to an affinity for or suffusion with some sort of energy
- "Good" means positive energy.
- Positive energy is a euphoric.
- "Evil" means negative energy.
- Negative energy is a stimulant.
- "Lawful" means divine energy.
- Using divine energy requires effort from others, but little personal effort.
- (?) Deities, congregations, nature, whatever, set up big energy fields, and divine casters just focus them.
- "Chaotic" means arcane energy.
- Using arcane energy requires no input from others, but significant personal effort.
- (?) Arcane casters set up their own ad-hoc fields.
- One character may have multiple alignments.
- having opposing alignments is [rare? impossible?]

Integration/writeup coming next.

[Occluded Sun]

[g]: Will act to prevent harm to others even at personal cost.
[e]: Will seek personal benefit even if it causes harm to others.
Order: General, universal, and consistent trump specific, local, and inconsistent.
Chaos: Specific, local, and inconsistent trump general, universal, and consistent.

[fectin]

That fails requirement (2).

[caladfel]

I'm working through this roughly along the systems
@caladfel
That axis is only useable if you don't think about it too deeply. For quick example, where does an Auschwitz gate guard fall under that rubric? What about a eugenicist? A zombie pumping a village's water supply? What about adventurers who sack orc towns for treasure?

It depends on why the guard is guarding the gate. If he is neutral and does not personally know any jews, he might be dissociated enough to find what is going on there appalling, but rationalize it as "I am just guarding the gate". If he is good, he might be torn inside about what is happening there. The adventurers sacking orc towns for treasure? It depends on why they are doing it.

Also, I think that in this implementation we should create an "unaligned" alignment to things that have no intelligence or moral and ethics completely alien (like TV Tropes orange and blue morality).

EDIT: I think this fails requirement 2, however.

[Occluded Sun]

I don't think your requirements [2] and [4] are compatible.

[Blicero]

Why do you think alignment is something that should be fixed instead of dumped? Do you think it adds anything uniquely positive to the game?

[fectin]

Why do you think alignment is something that should be fixed instead of dumped? Do you think it adds anything uniquely positive to the game?

Several reasons.
- Aesthetically, it's been a fixture for a while, and the game looks weird without it. AKA, "I just like it."
- Mechanically, there are a lot of hooks in there. So Detect Evil already exists, it's already written and integrated, and is already balanced (at least, balanced enough). At this point, it's more work to rip out than fix.
- Gameplaywise, alignment already drives story arcs and conflicts. Having that hook is great; stripping it out is sad. Some of those conflicts are over "what is the nature of good?" and some are over good vs. evil. Both are good prompts, and cleaning/focusing them should be a good thing.

Finally, for it's own sake. This is a hobby project like building a radio: it doesn't matter if I can get a prebuilt radio cheaper and better; that's not the point.

I don't think your requirements [2] and [4] are compatible.

Possibly. That's why I'm trying a paradigm that dissociates morality and alignment.

[Scrivener]

It won't work.

There is no rigorous definition of good. Even if you swap good for altruism you end up with questions of ethics and hedge cases where things don't make sense.

The other big problem is the lunacy of trying to categorize all personalities and motivations to a grid of nine options. Even with nine hundred options you would only begin to scratch the surface of all possibilities. Any attempt involves categories so broad you can try to shoehorn people into them. I've seen batman listed as all nine alignments before. Alignments have to be so vague they are meaningless or you have too many to ever go over.

Alignments are a bad idea that requires you to solve a fundamental philosophy question and lump people into categories that need to be so broad the categories mean nothing.

[Occluded Sun]

What about the traditional Four Elements? Or even the Asian Five? Not really judgmental.

[Lago PARANOIA]

d20 Modern's alignment system is pretty much the best alignment system I've ever seen.

[Username17]

So, given that, how can we make an alignment system unbroken?

Probably not.

First, some requirements:
1) New alignment system shall be biaxial, like 3E D&D alignment (T) and should have the same form (O).

This is trivial. Pick any two dimensional qualities and they can be biaxially mapped. Brightness and Contrast, Velocity and Mass, Death and Taxes, anything. But while this is a very easy criteria to meet, you should be aware that biaxiality is kind of... stupid. Even in places where you have a clear biaxial political discussion dividing things into four corners and four sides - there is rarely a political home for all eight positions.

2) New alignment system shall accommodate different interpretations of alignment characteristics (T) and should be interpretation-agnostic (O).

This one is extremely bizarre, because honestly having different interpretations essentially means that you're going to be having arguments. So your point 2 is "We should have endless arguments at the table about whether Paladins have to obey traffic signs in evil countries." Which is probably literally the worst part about Alignment and I have no idea why you demand it be implemented.

3) New alignment system should support adventure hooks (O).

This may seem odd to you, but this is actually incredibly problematic as well. Alignments will presumably vary from one player character to another, which means that if the alignments spur characters into attempting one quest or another you are in essence demanding that there be a strong in-character motivation for the player characters to refuse to go on adventures with each other.

4) New alignment system shall be simply explainable (T), and should be useable without explanation (O).

It has already been pointed out how this shits on (2). It also shits on (3). But perhaps more importantly, it renders the entire exercise stupid. While Team Red and Team Blue can be used without explanation, they can only be used without explanation because they are without meaning.

5) New alignment system shall be compatible with 3E (T), and should be transparently compatible with 3E (O).

3e's alignment system is a clusterfuck made out of garbage, and the extent to which you make something compatible with that it will also be a heap of hot garbage that makes me want to kill myself.

6) New alignment system shall have associative, in-game effects (T).

That certainly shits on (2), also on (4).

-Username17

[animea90]

2) New alignment system shall accommodate different interpretations of alignment characteristics (T) and should be interpretation-agnostic (O).

So this is where it breaks down. ALignment is intrinsically tied to morality and philosophers who spend their entire lives studying morality can't agree on the nature of "good" or "evil". If you could come up with an interpretation-agnostic system for alignment, you would revolutionize the academic field of morality.

The best you could do is say "my character considers himself good" or "my character doesn't care if he is good".

[schpeelah]

Why do you think alignment is something that should be fixed instead of dumped? Do you think it adds anything uniquely positive to the game?

Biaxial, implied to be behavior-dependent with in-game effects, alignment.

I mean, you could have 'alignment' just mean you are full of a particular flavor of planar magic with no particular implications for your behavior. Paladins might try to arrest you on suspicion of being a claric of Nerull, when you're just a necromancer or a tiefling. That version would be too limited if your elementalist can't pick Fire and cast Magic Circle Against Water, though.

There can also be 'alignment' that is a sort of declaration of how you'll be roleplaying, picking from a list of philosophies/political forces that are important in the campaign. That list obviously also needs to be longer than two sets of 3.

But having Detect Republican accurately judges people in the game isn't happening.

Edit: man, am I slow.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you're really addicted to 'detect evil/good/etc.' spells as a concept then you should make them more stringent. For example, a Priest of Yahweh's Detect Infidel spell should reveal if someone in the past year has broken one of the ten commandments, which ones, under what circumstances. A Priest of Mammon's Detect Infidel should reveal someone's top ten financial assets, what they did to attain them, and what they're currently coveting.

[schpeelah]

If you're really addicted to 'detect evil/good/etc.' spells as a concept then you should make them more stringent. For example, a Priest of Yahweh's Detect Infidel spell should reveal if someone in the past year has broken one of the ten commandments, which ones, under what circumstances. A Priest of Mammon's Detect Infidel should reveal someone's top ten financial assets, what they did to attain them, and what they're currently coveting.

It would be a lot simpler if praying tagged you with the signature of the appropriate god and Detect Infidel detected if you most recently prayed to the caster's god. Because it's detect infidel, not sinner.

[fectin]

First, some requirements:
1) New alignment system shall be biaxial, like 3E D&D alignment (T) and should have the same form (O).

This is trivial.

As you say, this is trivial by itself. It's a lot less trivial in combination though. Without this, FantasyCraft's alignment system comes close to satisfying these, and I find that both deeply silly and unsatisfying. (Though you do get to have arguments over whether the [waffles] alignment is opposed to the [cats] alignment).

2) New alignment system shall accommodate different interpretations of alignment characteristics (T) and should be interpretation-agnostic (O).

...
So your point 2 is "We should have endless arguments at the table about whether Paladins have to obey traffic signs in evil countries." Which is probably literally the worst part about Alignment and I have no idea why you demand it be implemented.

You're mistaken. I don't demand those arguments happen; I demand that this work the same for either answer, and ideally that it work without needing to have that argument.

5) New alignment system shall be compatible with 3E (T), and should be transparently compatible with 3E (O).

3e's alignment system is a clusterfuck made out of garbage, and the extent to which you make something compatible with that it will also be a heap of hot garbage that makes me want to kill myself.

With the overall system. If I wanted to duplicate 3E Alignment with added justification but no changes, I wouldn't have written up a page of text beforehand.

6) New alignment system shall have associative, in-game effects (T).

That certainly shits on (2), also on (4).

I think it's doable.

[Username17]

You're mistaken. I don't demand those arguments happen; I demand that this work the same for either answer, and ideally that it work without needing to have that argument.

Ah. Now I see the problem:



If it doesn't matter whether or not a Paladin has to obey neutral laws in evil countries, then by definition the alignment system can't have any consequences on play. Which means all your other demands are out the fucking window.

-Username17

[Grek]

Your two alignment axes are Temporal and Spiritual.

Temporal relates to how you feel about the political power structure of your homeland and is either Loyalist, Indifferent, or Rebel. Spiritual relates to the disposition of your soul is the name of some specific plane. Example alignments include:

Loyal Ysgardian (Likes the king, wants to die in battle and drink lots of mead)
Indifferent Primist (Cares not about political matters; loves nature above all else)
Rebel Ignian (Hates the current government, wants to set it and several other things on fire)
Indifferent Baatoran (Doesn't care who's in charge as long as they're paying for mercs)
Rebel Necropolitan (Wants to overthrow the queen and become an immortal lich king)

Spells that run off of Good and Evil alignments would instead be replaced by variants that run off spiritual alignment instead. So you'd have Magic Circle Against Ysgard, Detect Aquan and a version of Holy Word where the five spiritual alignments closest to your own on the great wheel are Good and everyone else gets blasted. Paladins and Monks are required to have Loyalist as their temporal alignment. Druids must have Primal as their spiritual alignment. Clerics detect as their spiritual alignment rather than as Primal.

Alignments can and do change during play. If you sell your soul to a Pit Fiend, your spiritual alignment becomes Baatoran regardless of what it was previously. If you assassinate the king of your country, your alignment becomes Rebel regardless of what it was before. If the Pretender to the throne assassinates the king, everyone's Temporal Alignment gets swapped to match their feelings about the Pretender being king. If you move away from your homeland and cease to care about the politics there, you become Indifferent, but if you continue to feel strongly patriotic, you maintain your old alignment.

1: T
2: T
3: O
4: O
5: T
6: T

[schpeelah]

The problem with planar alignment is that ends with too many fucking alignments. Detect Carcerian is too bullshit specialized to exist.

[fectin]

Grek: Very nice. I'd play that.
I like how it sets up a political focus, and also a larger cosmology.


One solution to Detect Carcerian is to roll it all into one spell, "Detect Alignment," then pick which alignment you're looking for at casting time. Not a perfect solution, but good enough for most cases.

[animea90]

Your two alignment axes are Temporal and Spiritual.

Temporal relates to how you feel about the political power structure of your homeland and is either Loyalist, Indifferent, or Rebel. Spiritual relates to the disposition of your soul is the name of some specific plane. Example alignments include:

Loyal Ysgardian (Likes the king, wants to die in battle and drink lots of mead)
Indifferent Primist (Cares not about political matters; loves nature above all else)
Rebel Ignian (Hates the current government, wants to set it and several other things on fire)
Indifferent Baatoran (Doesn't care who's in charge as long as they're paying for mercs)
Rebel Necropolitan (Wants to overthrow the queen and become an immortal lich king)

Spells that run off of Good and Evil alignments would instead be replaced by variants that run off spiritual alignment instead. So you'd have Magic Circle Against Ysgard, Detect Aquan and a version of Holy Word where the five spiritual alignments closest to your own on the great wheel are Good and everyone else gets blasted. Paladins and Monks are required to have Loyalist as their temporal alignment. Druids must have Primal as their spiritual alignment. Clerics detect as their spiritual alignment rather than as Primal.

Alignments can and do change during play. If you sell your soul to a Pit Fiend, your spiritual alignment becomes Baatoran regardless of what it was previously. If you assassinate the king of your country, your alignment becomes Rebel regardless of what it was before. If the Pretender to the throne assassinates the king, everyone's Temporal Alignment gets swapped to match their feelings about the Pretender being king. If you move away from your homeland and cease to care about the politics there, you become Indifferent, but if you continue to feel strongly patriotic, you maintain your old alignment.

1: T
2: T
3: O
4: O
5: T
6: T

I think the temporal alignment is very situational.

If you aren't in your specific homeland, then your temporal alignment stops mattering pretty quickly. In my campaigns, most play is going to happen outside the homeland of most(if not all) of the characters, because the most common character archetype is wandering adventurer. So in practice, most players are going to be indifferent.