Non-Standard D&D/Pathfinder Alignments Disscusion

[ZexionSephiroth]

I've been toying with the idea of having non-standard alignments for a Pathfinder campaign for a while. On one side it's because I think the idea of "Good vs Evil" in a campaign might end up seeming off when one of the players pipes up that "Asmodeus might have a point, so why is he evil again?" and then it gets really frustrating when the Pathfinder True Neutral outsiders seem to be pushing for eternal conflict, which is close enough to evil in my books.

And so I've been working on a few ideas, and I'd like to hear yours as well. Here's a few of my ideas, which you could mash together any which way if you're clever:

->Open-information vs Secrets & privacy axis. (Sounds good for one that only gets in conflict half of the time).
->Idealistic vs Cynical axis. (Also not always in conflict, and in fact could be working together. Very argumentative though, and makes it harder to convince each other on the right course of action.).
->Analytical vs Creative Axis. (Sure Chaos and Lawful already exist, but one can still be smart while being Chaotic Neutral by being smart at how best to cause chaos. Likewise for the others. [See Alignment Splitting].)
->Alignment Meshing. Which by combining two opposite alignments that work in conjunction without becoming Neutral between the two. (Think if you took a Lawful Outsider construct and stuck a Chaotic Outsider inside it. Thus using focused principles [Law] to create something unpredictable [Chaos] or maybe the other-way round, or both.)
->Axis Breaking. Where one takes the logical balance points between two extremes, and proves it wrong without picking just one extreme as better than it, but both. Essentially turning the Neutral point into an extreme in itself, or the extreme opposite of something on a new axis.(Such as Aeons in Pathfinder, which force balance on all other alignments including good and evil, thus causing eternal conflict unless good and evil can be alignment meshed. And so one has to push aeons out of their "neutral" position by creating an alignment that in defined as their opposite, thus breaking the axis. My particular method with Aeons is to call out the Aeons for being Discordian, and place my own character as being Harmonious by rallying the other alignments to kick their behinds [which may count as a logic bomb])
->Axis Splitting. Where if your character accepts one aspect of an alignment consistently, and consistently opposes the other aspect, then the axis could be split into two axis lines.
->Non-Axis Alignments (or Triangular alignments). Where one picks something that doesn't have a direct opposite to it, but possibly multiple contrasts. (Such as Science, Art, and Magic.)

That's All the possibilities I got so far, so now is a good time to come up with your own ideas, or maybe expand-on/Discuss/Criticize Mine.

Edit: For those Just entering the thread, think of my reasons for doing this as being a good way to expand the cosmology; even if the Alignment system itself isn't modified.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

Well, since nobody seems to be Posting anything here, I thought I'd elaborate on A possibility raised in one of my ideas: The "mesh" alignment of Chaotic-Lawful (or Lawful-Chaotic).

I imagine it's possible for Order to come from chaos, and chaos to come from order. So then these Lawful-Chaotic beings would focus on doing just such a thing, and may even alternate between which they try to favor.

One example of Chaotic-Lawful actions would be that an area may be overrun with chaotic forces, and in order to prepare the area to be taken over by lawful forces, they use the chaos against the chaotic forces to catch them off guard (use your imagination on how they do that), all the while giving the lawful forces a route through to take over. The inverse of that would be using lawful inspired tactics against other Lawful beings to create zones where it would be easiest for a chaotic being to take over (such as a load bearing structure full of pointy stuff.)

I imagine a Lawful-Chaotic Outsider to have a mechanically inspired body, that adapts based on circumstances using power from chaos, and those adaptions being thought up using both Lawful based principles to make something that works and Chaotic creativity to come up with something new.

And as mentioned, the crux of the alignment would not be just choosing one or the other, but that the two overlap incredibly easily for them; while outright ignoring that a neutral point between the two exists. (Kind of like if instead of meeting the two halfway, that they had improved one to the point it began to warp back round to the other. Such as a chaotic being that becomes so chaotic that they decide that what would be really chaotic would be to create laws that didn't exist before in order to use them to create more chaos.)

And now, I hope someone is paying attention this time.

 

[Arluza]

I found a 5x5 alignment chart. I find it to be more useful than the 3x3. Here is the image.

http://imgur.com/fjesw

 

[DEAD34345]

The fact is that peoples' (and in a fantasy setting other beings') opinions and ideas about morality are far too complex to represent on 2 axes, or probably any number at all for that matter. What I don't get is why it's necessary to try in the first place. Aside from the occasional spell that only works on standard "evil" enemies or something, would much really change if you just did away with the whole system?

Do note however that I've never actually played a tabletop RPG, though it is something I've looked into a little. I could be completely wrong.

 

[Fappy]

The problem with changing this stuff is that "good/evil" and "lawful/chaotic" are ingrained in the game mechanics. Groups I play with are usually pretty flexible when it comes to alignments since we like to role play a lot. As long as something a character does doesn't step way out of their alignment its fair game.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

The fact is that peoples' (and in a fantasy setting other beings') opinions and ideas about morality are far too complex to represent on 2 axes, or probably any number at all for that matter. What I don't get is why it's necessary to try in the first place. Aside from the occasional spell that only works on standard "evil" enemies or something, would much really change if you just did away with the whole system?

Do note however that I've never actually played a tabletop RPG, though it is something I've looked into a little. I could be completely wrong.

Well, trying such techniques as creating "non-standard Alignments" could be a great chance to come up with entirely new ways to develop the world of the campaign. By alignment alone one can imagine how a creature might look, how they behave, and what powers they have.

Relying on previously worn paths might limit some creative possibilities, and one might end up using the same worn paths for your creature concepts. Such as the standard "Angel vs Demons" being the only things inhabiting the alignment planes; when by all rights, lots of stuff would be up there.

If just adding one extra axis creates things inhabiting the ethical planes like proteans and the Axiomites, while also creating good creatures that the angels lead, such as Archons, Azatas and Agathions; then the exercise has added some level of depth to the world. (Even if some of it is missed the first time over.)

Of course, some people just want to play, and that's fine too. But remember that such methods are a good tool to allow the GM to flesh out their world, even if some of the things used to create them are never used in the game proper. (A creature thought up as a Lawful-Chaotic could within the game just be called a "neutral" alignment within the game world, and the depth to the world would still be there, just that it would represent more than what the game mechanics suggested it would.)

Edit:

Fappy:
The problem with changing this stuff is that "good/evil" and "lawful/chaotic" are ingrained in the game mechanics. Groups I play with are usually pretty flexible when it comes to alignments since we like to role play a lot. As long as something a character does doesn't step way out of their alignment its fair game.

@Fappy I suppose this more or less addresses your point as well.

 

[DoPo]

Right, I am an...amateur alignment enthusiast, so to say - I like toying with and looking at different takes on alignments and such. And here is what I have to say: the alignment system works - Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic does exactly what it was intended for. It's the audience that makes it not work, by shifting the intentions. And when this occurs, I suggest a really simple fix: SCREW THE SYSTEM. Like totally, scrap it, burn it, dance on top of the cinders and then scatter them in the wind. And start from scratch. Patching the system tends to lead to more trouble than it's worth.

What I'd do (if I ever had to), is to shift things into subjective scale and rework the cosmology so it fits with this. Which will lead to a somewhat looser interpretation but whatever.

Anyway, out of your suggestions:

->Open-information vs Secrets & privacy axis. (Sounds good for one that only gets in conflict half of the time).

This is good - it would be more of a personal code, though but could provide interesting effects in-game.

->Idealistic vs Cynical axis. (Also not always in conflict, and in fact could be working together. Very argumentative though, and makes it harder to convince each other on the right course of action.).

I don't really see this function as an alignment. Personality trait or character, yes, but not really an alignment.

->Analytical vs Creative Axis. (Sure Chaos and Lawful already exist, but one can still be smart while being Chaotic Neutral by being smart at how best to cause chaos. Likewise for the others. [See Alignment Splitting].)

This is almost the "cold logical" vs "emotional" I assume. Still not really an alignment, but an axis where different creatures fall onto.

->Alignment Meshing. Which by combining two opposite alignments that work in conjunction without becoming Neutral between the two. (Think if you took a Lawful Outsider construct and stuck a Chaotic Outsider inside it. Thus using focused principles [Law] to create something unpredictable [Chaos] or maybe the other-way round, or both.)

Frankly, this is just dumb. The solution to having a faulty system is not to mutilate it further.

->Axis Breaking. Where one takes the logical balance points between two extremes, and proves it wrong without picking just one extreme as better than it, but both. Essentially turning the Neutral point into an extreme in itself, or the extreme opposite of something on a new axis.(Such as Aeons in Pathfinder, which force balance on all other alignments including good and evil, thus causing eternal conflict unless good and evil can be alignment meshed. And so one has to push aeons out of their "neutral" position by creating an alignment that in defined as their opposite, thus breaking the axis. My particular method with Aeons is to call out the Aeons for being Discordian, and place my own character as being Harmonious by rallying the other alignments to kick their behinds [which may count as a logic bomb])

An interesting idea but still it might be mutilation of the system, depending on your take on it.

->Axis Splitting. Where if your character accepts one aspect of an alignment consistently, and consistently opposes the other aspect, then the axis could be split into two axis lines.

I'm not getting this one. Do you mean, you'll have something like an axis that goes from Neutral to Good and another one that goes from Neutral to Evil? If so, what is the benefit?

->Non-Axis Alignments (or Triangular alignments). Where one picks something that doesn't have a direct opposite to it, but possibly multiple contrasts. (Such as Science, Art, and Magic.)

This is good. I like it. It reminds me of the Magic the Gathering colours. It would still require reshuffling the cosmology to fit, but it would be quite more interesting when implemented.

 

[Fappy]

Right, I am an...amateur alignment enthusiast, so to say - I like toying with and looking at different takes on alignments and such. And here is what I have to say: the alignment system works - Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic does exactly what it was intended for. It's the audience that makes it not work, by shifting the intentions. And when this occurs, I suggest a really simple fix: SCREW THE SYSTEM. Like totally, scrap it, burn it, dance on top of the cinders and then scatter them in the wind. And start from scratch. Patching the system tends to lead to more trouble than it's worth.

I've been running games in a setting I made recently that has no outsiders (due to lore reasons) and paladins are banned as they don't exist in the setting. Assuming you ignore alignment-based gear almost all cases of alignment are extinguished. I'm running it in the Pathfinder system and the only alignment restrictions that exist that I can think of are: Barbarians have to be chaotic and Druids have to be neutral. There are no Ki powers in the setting and the MArtial Artist archetype for Monks has no alignment restrictions.

Alignments can be fun to use mechanically and in role play, but it can be just as fun to ignore it all together.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

->Alignment Meshing. Which by combining two opposite alignments that work in conjunction without becoming Neutral between the two. (Think if you took a Lawful Outsider construct and stuck a Chaotic Outsider inside it. Thus using focused principles [Law] to create something unpredictable [Chaos] or maybe the other-way round, or both.)

Frankly, this is just dumb. The solution to having a faulty system is not to mutilate it further.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was kinda using my derailing instincts to come up with that, and was also using it more as a way to create fluff. In practice, (like mentioned a little later), it would be more of a neutral character that just happens to like using and applying both sides of the equation and building both up. As opposed to Neutral characters that reject both, or forcibly enforce balance between the two, or just don't have an opinion on the matter.

->Axis Breaking. Where one takes the logical balance points between two extremes, and proves it wrong without picking just one extreme as better than it, but both. Essentially turning the Neutral point into an extreme in itself, or the extreme opposite of something on a new axis.(Such as Aeons in Pathfinder, which force balance on all other alignments including good and evil, thus causing eternal conflict unless good and evil can be alignment meshed. And so one has to push aeons out of their "neutral" position by creating an alignment that in defined as their opposite, thus breaking the axis. My particular method with Aeons is to call out the Aeons for being Discordian, and place my own character as being Harmonious by rallying the other alignments to kick their behinds [which may count as a logic bomb])

An interesting idea but still it might be mutilation of the system, depending on your take on it.

"Still MIGHT be?", okay, granted that you're probably thinking in terms of mechanics (while I'm thinking in creativity terms). But when I came up with the concept, it was essentially me going out and saying "Hey, guys who made standard Pathfinder setting, I completely disagree with Aeons." which evolved into a logic bomb style plot, that required me to redefine what alignments were in order to wage a war where the Aeons would lose, or surrender having figured they don't need to exist anymore as everything else seems to have figured things out. This concept was my attempt to kill the old alignments off, while delivering such in story form.

->Axis Splitting. Where if your character accepts one aspect of an alignment consistently, and consistently opposes the other aspect, then the axis could be split into two axis lines.

I'm not getting this one. Do you mean, you'll have something like an axis that goes from Neutral to Good and another one that goes from Neutral to Evil? If so, what is the benefit?

Oh, i kinda meant split some of the aspects of an alignment in two. Such as Lawful vs Chaos splitting into things like Obeys-rules vs Breaks-rules and Conforms vs Makes-own-way. Essentially same alignment axis, just more nuanced. Probably not a good idea to include as a game-play element, but could help GMs keep score of when characters stray into neutral easier.

->Non-Axis Alignments (or Triangular alignments). Where one picks something that doesn't have a direct opposite to it, but possibly multiple contrasts. (Such as Science, Art, and Magic.)

This is good. I like it. It reminds me of the Magic the Gathering colours. It would still require reshuffling the cosmology to fit, but it would be quite more interesting when implemented.

Glad that Something unique I tried was both good, and already done... No, that is not sarcasm, the second part makes me glad that now I know where I might have gotten the idea, since my bother used to play magic the gathering.

 

[Shinsei-J]

I DM quite abit but I never really put to much into alignment because the characters are who they are and the only ones who needs to know how they act are the player and the DM.
That being said if the palidin decides to kill for no morally exeptable reason his gods will be frowning oppon it and may decide to take away his powers if it's deemed serious enough.
Just as if he were to change alignment into evil, this would void his holy powers but I am a lenient DM and I just want my players to have fun and not get caght up i the little stuff like alignment to stop them from roleplaying to their fullest so tne conciquences of their actions are to my discretion.

 

[Slycne]

Another possibility is to move away from alignment being an indicator of morality and instead simply your allegiance. It's pretty simple to envision when looked at in context of say World War II. There were both honorable upstanding German soldiers and horrible Nazi's both fighting for the Axis, just like there were good and bad fighting for the Allies. It's not often talked about, but the Allies actually executed a number of their own soldiers throughout the war for crimes committed during duty.

Let the characters be themselves without trying to play pin the tail and stay there to the 3x3 grid.

 

[DoPo]

->Axis Breaking. Where one takes the logical balance points between two extremes, and proves it wrong without picking just one extreme as better than it, but both. Essentially turning the Neutral point into an extreme in itself, or the extreme opposite of something on a new axis.(Such as Aeons in Pathfinder, which force balance on all other alignments including good and evil, thus causing eternal conflict unless good and evil can be alignment meshed. And so one has to push aeons out of their "neutral" position by creating an alignment that in defined as their opposite, thus breaking the axis. My particular method with Aeons is to call out the Aeons for being Discordian, and place my own character as being Harmonious by rallying the other alignments to kick their behinds [which may count as a logic bomb])

An interesting idea but still it might be mutilation of the system, depending on your take on it.

"Still MIGHT be?", okay, granted that you're probably thinking in terms of mechanics (while I'm thinking in creativity terms). But when I came up with the concept, it was essentially me going out and saying "Hey, guys who made standard Pathfinder setting, I completely disagree with Aeons." which evolved into a logic bomb style plot, that required me to redefine what alignments were in order to wage a war where the Aeons would lose, or surrender having figured they don't need to exist anymore as everything else seems to have figured things out. This concept was my attempt to kill the old alignments off, while delivering such in story form.

No, I didn't mean mechanics, more like whether you'd go from objective or subjective perspective on morality. It makes sense objectively (to an extent) but not as much subjectively.

->Axis Splitting. Where if your character accepts one aspect of an alignment consistently, and consistently opposes the other aspect, then the axis could be split into two axis lines.

I'm not getting this one. Do you mean, you'll have something like an axis that goes from Neutral to Good and another one that goes from Neutral to Evil? If so, what is the benefit?

Oh, i kinda meant split some of the aspects of an alignment in two. Such as Lawful vs Chaos splitting into things like Obeys-rules vs Breaks-rules and Conforms vs Makes-own-way. Essentially same alignment axis, just more nuanced. Probably not a good idea to include as a game-play element, but could help GMs keep score of when characters stray into neutral easier.

I think that would be too nitpicky. Yeah, if a GM and the players can't work out the alignments, then - yes, I suppose it's OK but overall it doesn't really bring anything new on the table. You may as well go and implement a hierarchy of sins for each alignment - it would have roughly the same effect.

 

[Baalthazaq]

I'm not sure you know what the alignment system is for.

All personalities and people can fit on any alignment scale of opposites.
Ugly -> Attractive. Shallow -> Deep. Liberal -> Conservative. Left -> Right. Happy -> Angry. Fat -> Skinny. Short -> Tall. Pro-chest-hair -> anti-chest-hair.

It works PERFECTLY. If you think otherwise, some misunderstanding has occurred.


"But I'm a libertarian! My politics aren't completely contained within..."
You're neutral. You agree with the liberal concept of social freedom, but also with the conservative concepts of economic freedom.
"I meant independent!"
Then you're either neutral (protest or non voter) or you'll come down one side or the other eventually.
"It doesn't tell you the nuances!"
I don't care sir, please go into the booth and vote, or don't.
"But that doesn't tell you if I like kittens!"
That has nothing to do with your political alignment. That's your personality.


The alignment system is not your personality.
It is there so spells and abilities like "Detect alignment" or "smite evil" work. That is the purpose of the alignment system. It means that people can look at your character, and magically determine if he's a "goody", or a "baddy".

Why do you want a system that tells you if he's artsy? A "Detect Science" spell? "Smite Artsy"?

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

I'm not sure you know what the alignment system is for.

All personalities and people can fit on any alignment scale of opposites.
Ugly -> Attractive. Shallow -> Deep. Liberal -> Conservative. Left -> Right. Happy -> Angry. Fat -> Skinny. Short -> Tall. Pro-chest-hair -> anti-chest-hair.

It works PERFECTLY. If you think otherwise, some misunderstanding has occurred.


"But I'm a libertarian! My politics aren't completely contained within..."
You're neutral. You agree with the liberal concept of social freedom, but also with the conservative concepts of economic freedom.
"I meant independent!"
Then you're either neutral (protest or non voter) or you'll come down one side or the other eventually.
"It doesn't tell you the nuances!"
I don't care sir, please go into the booth and vote, or don't.
"But that doesn't tell you if I like kittens!"
That has nothing to do with your political alignment. That's your personality.


The alignment system is not your personality.
It is there so spells and abilities like "Detect alignment" or "smite evil" work. That is the purpose of the alignment system. It means that people can look at your character, and magically determine if he's a "goody", or a "baddy".

Actually, as I seem to be saying a lot; I seem to be motivated by the Writer based need to put a thousand different types of outsiders and planes in the heavens and hells. I'm not sure if that wasn't clear, or whether it makes the point moot, but eh, it still might end up with someone getting an idea for an outsider that looks like some kind of mechanical DJ... Which I am already working on.

Anyways, I'm not quite so concerned about implementing alternate alignments into rules, as I am in thinking them up for the above reasons.

Why do you want a system that tells you if he's artsy? A "Detect Science" spell? "Smite Artsy"?

It would help on figure out some of their roles better for one, such as if the character is some kind of gadgetry expert or alchemist; or if the other character is some kind of Bard or rogue (or a few "Diplomancers", if I'm using the term right.); and "Magic" tends to speak for itself.

...But yeah, I guess the games probably have analogues without mentioning alignments. So The specific examples I gave are kinda silly.

 

[Baalthazaq]

I'm not sure you know what the alignment system is for.



The alignment system is not your personality.
It is there so spells and abilities like "Detect alignment" or "smite evil" work. That is the purpose of the alignment system. It means that people can look at your character, and magically determine if he's a "goody", or a "baddy".

Actually, as I seem to be saying a lot; I seem to be motivated by the Writer based need to put a thousand different types of outsiders and planes in the heavens and hells. I'm not sure if that wasn't clear, or whether it makes the point moot, but eh, it still might end up with someone getting an idea for an outsider that looks like some kind of mechanical DJ... Which I am already working on.

Anyways, I'm not quite so concerned about implementing alternate alignments into rules, as I am in thinking them up for the above reasons.

Ah, so you're expanding the cosmology more than anything. That's fine, just keep in mind if you want an alignment defined cosmology, you're going to end up with a rapidly expanding universe for every alignment you add. 3x3 becomes 3x3x3, so all of a sudden you have 27 you need to come up with instead of 9.

If you're building it from scratch... again why attach it to alignment? The reason D&D does is because of the concepts of heaven and hell. "Do good, go here. Do bad, go there".

So are you going to have a "Be X go here?". It could be interesting, but you'll struggle to make it make sense.

Why do you want a system that tells you if he's artsy? A "Detect Science" spell? "Smite Artsy"?

It would help on figure out some of their roles better for one...

See... this is why I posted at all. The alignment system isn't there for the "true actor" to get into his role at all. That's not its purpose or intent. It's not a job it performs well. Just like a teacup makes a terrible wallet.

You seem to have gone "My goodness, this alignment system is terrible at this function it shouldn't be doing, I will improve it to serve this function!".

All you're going to end up with is trying to convince people to keep using the wrong tool for the wrong job because it's slightly better (maybe) than the old one at doing a job it shouldn't be doing.

Cosmologically it makes sense. As a theme while world-building, great. Giving your world a fixed morality? Fine. Character development? ...Teacup wallet.

(Also, thanks for not taking my argument as polemics and becoming overly defensive. Please continue to read the above as even toned conversation, as it was always meant to be.)

 

[Zen Toombs]

The "mesh" alignment of Chaotic-Lawful (or Lawful-Chaotic).

I imagine it's possible for Order to come from chaos, and chaos to come from order.

Welcome to Ravnica. Check out [http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Boros_Legion] the Boros [http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=87993].

Anyways, actually using alignment tends to be a bit silly. Most people only use it in the loosest of terms. If you are committed to actually using it, you lose out on moral ambiguity. However, you can use alignment to do some interesting things, especially if you mess around with it and use it in world-building.

For example, you could use something like what magic uses for its color pie.

Spoiler: Om nom nom

Each of the colors that are next to each other are "allied colors" due to their similar philosophies and the colors that are opposite each other are "enemy colors" due to

(Explained and detailed here [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/MagicTheGathering] and here [http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr85] and a couple other places. The first one is better though)

 

[Atmos Duality]

Alignments can be fun to use mechanically and in role play, but it can be just as fun to ignore it all together.

They can be. Though for a standard D&D game, even the simplest of alignment systems looks comically flawed if not given careful attention.

It doesn't take much to figure out that most sane people in an average D&D setting don't walk around going "Oh, I'm evil. So I'd better maim/steal/murder/swindle so I don't lose a level."

I know there's more to it than that, but most of the alignments make too many assumptions for "intent".

On Topic:
I prefer to ignore traditional Alignment altogether, and ask the player to rationally define their goals and intentions. It saves on the inevitable moral condescension or "Mwahaha-ing" later. If they start conflicting too much for the sake of convenience, that's when I punish them for going out of character.

 

[Fappy]

Alignments can be fun to use mechanically and in role play, but it can be just as fun to ignore it all together.

They can be. Though for a standard D&D game, even the simplest of alignment systems looks comically flawed if not given careful attention.

It doesn't take much to figure out that most sane people in an average D&D setting don't walk around going "Oh, I'm evil. So I'd better maim/steal/murder/swindle so I don't lose a level."

I know there's more to it than that, but most of the alignments make too many assumptions for "intent".

On Topic:
I prefer to ignore traditional Alignment altogether, and ask the player to rationally define their goals and intentions. It saves on the inevitable moral condescension or "Mwahaha-ing" later. If they start conflicting too much for the sake of convenience, that's when I punish them for going out of character.

Thankfully my group is really good about keeping in character. We rarely ever run into alignment related issues. I've heard horror stories from other groups though.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

I'm not sure you know what the alignment system is for.



The alignment system is not your personality.
It is there so spells and abilities like "Detect alignment" or "smite evil" work. That is the purpose of the alignment system. It means that people can look at your character, and magically determine if he's a "goody", or a "baddy".

Actually, as I seem to be saying a lot; I seem to be motivated by the Writer based need to put a thousand different types of outsiders and planes in the heavens and hells. I'm not sure if that wasn't clear, or whether it makes the point moot, but eh, it still might end up with someone getting an idea for an outsider that looks like some kind of mechanical DJ... Which I am already working on.

Anyways, I'm not quite so concerned about implementing alternate alignments into rules, as I am in thinking them up for the above reasons.

Ah, so you're expanding the cosmology more than anything. That's fine, just keep in mind if you want an alignment defined cosmology, you're going to end up with a rapidly expanding universe for every alignment you add. 3x3 becomes 3x3x3, so all of a sudden you have 27 you need to come up with instead of 9.

If you're building it from scratch... again why attach it to alignment? The reason D&D does is because of the concepts of heaven and hell. "Do good, go here. Do bad, go there".

So are you going to have a "Be X go here?". It could be interesting, but you'll struggle to make it make sense.

Yep, that pretty much it in a nutshell... or 6.

Why do you want a system that tells you if he's artsy? A "Detect Science" spell? "Smite Artsy"?

It would help on figure out some of their roles better for one...

See... this is why I posted at all. The alignment system isn't there for the "true actor" to get into his role at all. That's not its purpose or intent. It's not a job it performs well. Just like a teacup makes a terrible wallet.

I may be cutting this part out of context, But I didn't mean 'that' role. More like whether that character you don't trust is going to try and stab you in the back with a knife or bewitch you for some convoluted plot. Still makes the idea just as bad, as one could theoretically get the same information from spells that aren't alignment based, such as detect magic; which I think already exists, and could be modified to account for whether there is mechanical parts to something (which is pure semantics I presume... probably) or a being is high in charisma based skills.

...And thus I have just argued a semantic point for no reason. Sorry.

You seem to have gone "My goodness, this alignment system is terrible at this function it shouldn't be doing, I will improve it to serve this function!".

... I prefer to use the term "re-purpose". But yeah, Valid point.

All you're going to end up with is trying to convince people to keep using the wrong tool for the wrong job because it's slightly better (maybe) than the old one at doing a job it shouldn't be doing.

Cosmologically it makes sense. As a theme while world-building, great. Giving your world a fixed morality? Fine. Character development? ...Teacup wallet.

Considering this, I think I should have made the Cosmology building/expansion part outright stated for this thread... or something. (man I'm Tired, I almost put in a "For dummies" reference in there.)

(Also, thanks for not taking my argument as polemics and becoming overly defensive. Please continue to read the above as even toned conversation, as it was always meant to be.)

*looks up the term Polemics, before walking back with a cup of coffee* I wouldn't assume someone is taking a polemic argument. I tend to prefer to use some kind of synthesis view. Taking other's views and fusing it to my existing ones is a great way to broaden my horizons.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

The "mesh" alignment of Chaotic-Lawful (or Lawful-Chaotic).

I imagine it's possible for Order to come from chaos, and chaos to come from order.

Welcome to Ravnica. Check out [http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Boros_Legion] the Boros [http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=87993].

Anyways, actually using alignment tends to be a bit silly. Most people only use it in the loosest of terms. If you are committed to actually using it, you lose out on moral ambiguity. However, you can use alignment to do some interesting things, especially if you mess around with it and use it in world-building.

For example, you could use something like what magic uses for its color pie.

Spoiler: Om nom nom

Each of the colors that are next to each other are "allied colors" due to their similar philosophies and the colors that are opposite each other are "enemy colors" due to

(Explained and detailed here [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/MagicTheGathering] and here [http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr85] and a couple other places. The first one is better though)

Hmm...Taking a look through those links, I seem to be Gravitating towards Blue/Red. Which may be a problem. I may need to offset this somehow for future outsider concepts.