Alignment - because we ...ing can't let it pass

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:39 pm

That doesn't eliminate my point at all. In fact that supports it. If someone intentionally sub optimizes their character they would STILL be paying attention to the mechanics even if its just to ignore them. If they make a sub optimal character in order to get skills that coincide with their character's motif they are STILL tied to the mechanics of the game. If they intend to make a weak character they still are tied to the mechanics because they have to know what's good in order to make themselves bad.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:51 pm

frankly it's the fact that mechanics determine success/failure restricts the story more directely then it does by influencing the players
if the mechanics dictate that, say, refusing rewards gets you killed then you will still see players trying to play the "I can't accept that, it's your lifesavings" guy, even if that is synomous with being the Epic Fail Guy

what you won't see is the players trying that and succeeding,

why is this giving me flash backs to Elensarr, and his godawful Arturius project

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:14 am

That is actually my point. If mechanics don't support the I give freely type character most people won't do it. However if you add an element that allows you to be able to do that (a sort of non gold dependent wealth system is being discussed here in fact) and succeed players will be more likely to play in that style.

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:31 am

You are saying that if an action is penalized then (most) people won't do it.
I'm saying that enough people WILL do it, and get punished, to have a noticable impact on the game.

to give an example, let's say that we have game which perports to be a game of Heroic fantasy, but the rules reward the players for hordeing gold, using "dishonorable" tactics (poison, sneak attacks, deception), and generally being assholes.

You envision that this will lead to parties of Grizzled, crafty mecenaries, completely ignoring the misleading flavor text. WHich I admit, this is preferable, and in an ideal world would be the case.

I am contending that, if the flavor text doesn't match the rules, many will attempt to play "The kind and generous hero who won't take the easy way out, and succeeds against the odds"

and they will end up playing "the dimwitted and pennyless dead weight, who won't do nessessary things that he considers yucky, and fails miserably because of it"
not everyone, maybe not even a majority, but enough that more parties will be burdend with at least one such lodestone then parties which escape that fate.

the difference is subtle, and puts us on the same side for most practical purposes (I.E. we both find rules which undermine the flavor text to be unacceptable), but I place great stock in truth for it's own sake, and assuming that players will do as mechanics reward and not as flavor text exorts means ignoring 3e's years and years of; " Dur Hur, Cleric Archer? Cleric is for teh healbot, not archering"

and having gone back and reread the recent posts
I realize that I have no idea WTF Sigma is saying.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:54 am

Kobajagrande wrote:Either come up with some smart thing to say, or stop wasting our time.

So the simple min/max concept of making yourself really good at one thing and then doing that thing went over your head? Parties can be min/maxed, its not just for characters. 4e makes the best party all ranged. Granting bonuses for certain personalities pushes the party towards everyone having the same personality.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:15 am

norms29 wrote: regardless; Sigma is right to disagree, we've all encountered people who insist on intentionally playing sub-optimal characters because they think it automatically makes them "better roleplayers"

This is the opposite though; combat and encounter mechanic rewards for being better roleplayers, which is an entirely subjective approach (and arbitrary... dunn dnnn dnnnnn!)

It won't work the way you want.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:23 pm

norms29 wrote:You are saying that if an action is penalized then (most) people won't do it.
I'm saying that enough people WILL do it, and get punished, to have a noticable impact on the game.

to give an example, let's say that we have game which perports to be a game of Heroic fantasy, but the rules reward the players for hordeing gold, using "dishonorable" tactics (poison, sneak attacks, deception), and generally being assholes.

You envision that this will lead to parties of Grizzled, crafty mecenaries, completely ignoring the misleading flavor text. WHich I admit, this is preferable, and in an ideal world would be the case.

I am contending that, if the flavor text doesn't match the rules, many will attempt to play "The kind and generous hero who won't take the easy way out, and succeeds against the odds"

and they will end up playing "the dimwitted and pennyless dead weight, who won't do nessessary things that he considers yucky, and fails miserably because of it"
not everyone, maybe not even a majority, but enough that more parties will be burdend with at least one such lodestone then parties which escape that fate.

the difference is subtle, and puts us on the same side for most practical purposes (I.E. we both find rules which undermine the flavor text to be unacceptable), but I place great stock in truth for it's own sake, and assuming that players will do as mechanics reward and not as flavor text exorts means ignoring 3e's years and years of; " Dur Hur, Cleric Archer? Cleric is for teh healbot, not archering"

and having gone back and reread the recent posts
I realize that I have no idea WTF Sigma is saying.

You bring up flavor text and that is something that I haven't touched on. Very few people will ignore game mechanics for flavor text. Most people who play who don't already know the rules will still try and make a character that matches their own vision of their character regardless of what "flavor text" might say.

Then there would be the question of where the flavor text came from. If a GM is trying to put a certain spin on heroes most likely the flavor text for that campaign world will be different. I haven't used the flavor text as written out of the player's handbook since I first started running DnD and I highly doubt the vast majority of players and DMs find the flavor text to be the defining piece of their characters.

In my case I am assuming that the DM, the mechanics of the game under that DM, and the flavor are not separate. Also I am assuming that its not the DM who decides the direction of the game but the players in conjunction with the DM. Mechanics that support character consistency will promote character consistency. If the players want to play a cleric archer (which really isn't that bad of a combination), they may not have the BEST character but they should have a playable character. If the clerics want to be altruistic then simply have their rewards be horded by the bad guys who they 'd have no qualms about looting.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:56 pm

MGuy wrote:Very few people will ignore game mechanics for flavor text.

You won't believe how many people thought True Necromancer to be powerful simply because the flavor text stated that. The Tome Series started with Frank and K being tired of making arguments against TN.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:53 pm

That may be somewhat true but the True Necromancer by large does what its supposed to. It specializes in raising and controlling undead and pretty much gets all the mechanics of doing so. Other than that I'd say most of the problem there was misunderstanding the mechanics. I think F and K were tired of people thinking that the mechanics of the class actually worked out to make it powerful.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:24 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Kobajagrande wrote:Either come up with some smart thing to say, or stop wasting our time.
So the simple min/max concept of making yourself really good at one thing and then doing that thing went over your head? Parties can be min/maxed, its not just for characters. 4e makes the best party all ranged. Granting bonuses for certain personalities pushes the party towards everyone having the same personality.

And this is exactly why awarding points for roleplaying a character towards a certain personality is stupid.

I find it barely acceptable as it is in 4th Edition where every ranger uses bastard swords or waraxes and every motherfucking rageblood barbarian uses an excutioner's axe. If I go to a game and 50% of the people start having their characters talk in Ye Olde Englishe because there's a mechanical bonus for being 'old-fashioned' I am going to kill bitches.

We went over this shit in 4th Edition with races. This led to there never being any halfling wizards or tiefling fighters. Lame to the fucking lame.

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:12 am

So I'm just putting this out there to inflate my dismal post count.*

I thought of this in like 2 minutes, and this seems as good as any other place to discuss it.

Law represents ORDER. Law goes about enforcing dominion over everything that it can and can't see, supplanting ignorence with understanding, and forcing confromity by rule and regulation. Any action that brings order is a lawful act. Absolute Law is like ice: even though it is in perfect order, it is compleatly dead and stagnent, but it does keep the beers cold and the trains running on time.

Chaos represents ENTROPY. Hennet and his belt buckle outfit can sit on a broom, sideways. Chaos is not about "induvuality", or "freedom", or any other words that you got to throw up those stupid "finger quotes" for, it's all about distruction. Chaos causes meat to rot and mountains to crumble, but it also provides the fire's warmth and cleared land for farming. Any action that destroys/kills/alters something else is a Chaotic act. Absolute Chaos is like... well... fire: living inside it will kill you, but living near it helps change things up to make life better.

Good represents COMMUNITY. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Good falls on the side of The Many. Good people (and good neighbors) "get along"; any action is undertaken for the betterment of the group, it is a Good act.

Evil represents YOU. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Evil is on your side. Evil people "get ahead"; Any action that is done solely for your benifit over the benefit of another is an evil action.

A Lawful Good person imposes dominion to advance socioty
A Chaotic Good person destroyes things for the advancement of socioty
A Lawful Evil person imposes dominion to improve his situation
A Chaotic Evil person destroys things to improve his situation

*Why else post in an alignment thread?

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:26 am

>>Why else post in an alignment thread?<<

Indeed!

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:26 am

Unless it is too late, and this thread too old that was necro'd, I will throw my hat in the ring. (Hopefully I haven't already posted this here.)

I think all alignment needs is the 2 axis system.

Law/Chaos
Good/Evil

You start on one side or in between for both axis.

There isn't really a need to make out the 9 combinations of it. Just each thing that is so big where alignment would need to be looked at checks whether you are moving closer to one end of either axis.

Chaotic Good, doesn't matter. Only Chaotic, and Good matter. Then you don't have to mess with the whole Robin Hood, Superman, and all that other crap. You still cover everything just with the way it was meant to be form the beginning before trying to unify the ideas into some finite list of who is what out of 9 choices. Sure you still have those 9 choices available, but you really don't need to bother with finding examples to fit them.

As for how to treat alignment form a game POV...that is a whole other thing and would depend on the game, and type of game that the group of players wanted wanted out of that game's system.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:32 am

shadzar wrote:I think all alignment needs is the 2 axis system.

Law/Chaos
Good/Evil

You start on one side or in between for both axis.

There isn't really a need to make out the 9 combinations of it. Just each thing that is so big where alignment would need to be looked at checks whether you are moving closer to one end of either axis.

Chaotic Good, doesn't matter. Only Chaotic, and Good matter.

That does not work, unless the two axes are supposed to apply to something completely different. If they are both supposed to reflect your actions and decisions there is no difference between being "chaotic good" and "chaotic and good".

Itay K · Post by **Itay K** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:57 pm

Hicks wrote:
Law represents ORDER. Law goes about enforcing dominion over everything that it can and can't see, supplanting ignorance with understanding, and forcing confromity by rule and regulation. Any action that brings order is a lawful act. Absolute Law is like ice: even though it is in perfect order, it is completely dead and stagnnt, but it does keep the beers cold and the trains running on time.

Chaos represents ENTROPY. Chaos is not about "individuality", or "freedom" - it's all about destruction. Chaos causes meat to rot and mountains to crumble, but it also provides the fire's warmth and cleared land for farming. Any action that destroys/kills/alters something else is a Chaotic act. Absolute Chaos is like... well... fire: living inside it will kill you, but living near it helps change things up to make life better.

Good represents COMMUNITY. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Good falls on the side of The Many. Good people (and good neighbors) "get along"; any action is undertaken for the betterment of the group, it is a Good act.

Evil represents YOU. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Evil is on your side. Evil people "get ahead"; Any action that is done solely for your benifit over the benefit of another is an evil action.
A Lawful Good person imposes dominion to advance socioty
A Chaotic Good person destroyes things for the advancement of socioty
A Lawful Evil person imposes dominion to improve his situation
A Chaotic Evil person destroys things to improve his situation

* Systematic genocide destroys lives for the benefit of the aggressive society making it a Chaotic Good act.
* Chopping off the left feet of all newborn green people, does the same while also providing order and regulation, and as such is a Chaotic Lawful Good act.
* Such an act comitted as part of a ritual to release a demon lord (benefit to a single entity) is a Chaotic Lawful Good Evil act.

TL;DR While appealing in their apprent simplicity, these alignment descriptions provide highly unintuitive results.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:42 pm

Hicks wrote:So I'm just putting this out there to inflate my dismal post count.*

I thought of this in like 2 minutes, and this seems as good as any other place to discuss it.
Law represents ORDER. Law goes about enforcing dominion over everything that it can and can't see, supplanting ignorence with understanding, and forcing confromity by rule and regulation. Any action that brings order is a lawful act. Absolute Law is like ice: even though it is in perfect order, it is compleatly dead and stagnent, but it does keep the beers cold and the trains running on time.

Chaos represents ENTROPY. Hennet and his belt buckle outfit can sit on a broom, sideways. Chaos is not about "induvuality", or "freedom", or any other words that you got to throw up those stupid "finger quotes" for, it's all about distruction. Chaos causes meat to rot and mountains to crumble, but it also provides the fire's warmth and cleared land for farming. Any action that destroys/kills/alters something else is a Chaotic act. Absolute Chaos is like... well... fire: living inside it will kill you, but living near it helps change things up to make life better.

Good represents COMMUNITY. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Good falls on the side of The Many. Good people (and good neighbors) "get along"; any action is undertaken for the betterment of the group, it is a Good act.

Evil represents YOU. In the cosmic question of "Which is more important? the One or the Many?", Evil is on your side. Evil people "get ahead"; Any action that is done solely for your benifit over the benefit of another is an evil action.
A Lawful Good person imposes dominion to advance socioty
A Chaotic Good person destroyes things for the advancement of socioty
A Lawful Evil person imposes dominion to improve his situation
A Chaotic Evil person destroys things to improve his situation

*Why else post in an alignment thread?

It’s a good base to start from. I’d further divide it into the “abstract” and the “personal”

Law
- Abstract: Structure, Predictability
- Personal: Discipline
Chaos
- Abstract: Entropy, Non-Predictability
- Personal: Permissiveness
Good
- Abstract: 3rd person above 1st person
- Personal: Self sacrifice
Evil
- Abstract: 1st person above 3rd person
- Personal: Self serving

Note that good and evil are almost always defined in a personal manner as without sentience they cannot be defined. Law and Chaos do not need sentience; structure and entropy are a part of the universe itself.

My notion of law may seem counter institutive, but because it is a better location of cart and horse. The lawful person aligns himself with greater laws because his internal discipline gives him a structure that he then wishes to resonate with on even higher levels. Likewise the person of chaos isn’t against the notion of laws; he just doesn’t care about them.

As for good and evil I avoided the many/one analogy. This has the implication that self sacrifice to the “many” is better than self sacrifice to the “few.” Note also that the impact of law and chaos can make good and evil examples confusing. (As in “I did not do this because I wanted to put you above me; I did this because not doing this would have violated my discipline which I believe is the ultimate path for personal power, so I really did this for me.”)

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:15 pm

Murtak wrote:
shadzar wrote:I think all alignment needs is the 2 axis system.

Law/Chaos
Good/Evil

You start on one side or in between for both axis.

There isn't really a need to make out the 9 combinations of it. Just each thing that is so big where alignment would need to be looked at checks whether you are moving closer to one end of either axis.

Chaotic Good, doesn't matter. Only Chaotic, and Good matter.
That does not work, unless the two axes are supposed to apply to something completely different. If they are both supposed to reflect your actions and decisions there is no difference between being "chaotic good" and "chaotic and good".

2 after 1 and before 3.

1- Law vs Chaos
2- Good vs Evil

They do each apply to something different.

Was you last action lawful, or chaotic? Chaotic.
Move closer towards chaotic end.

Was your action Good or Evil? Evil.
Move closer to Evil end.

Are you Chaotic? Yes

Are you Good? No, I became Neutral.

It isn't brain surgery, or rocket science.

Either you are Lawful, Chaotic, or in-between.

ALSO, either you are Good, Evil, or In-between.

They NEVER have to cross each other in order to function. Chaos is not the opposite of good, and is not related to it; nor is lawful the opposite of evil or directly related to it. They are separate but both function to give a whole alignment range.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:27 pm

shadzar wrote:They NEVER have to cross each other in order to function. Chaos is not the opposite of good, and is not related to it; nor is lawful the opposite of evil or directly related to it. They are separate but both function to give a whole alignment range.

...a range which can then be described via a 3x3 array depicting all possible combinations of Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and Good/Neutral/Evil. Which is exactly what we see in RAW alignment description. You aren't actually changing anything about the alignments, you're just writing them down differently. People in D&D already are describable as "Lawful, and also Good" or "LC-Neutral, and also Evil".

Seriously, all that your proposal does is change the box you write on your character sheet from:

Code: Select all

LG  NG  CG
LN  NN  CN
LE  NE  CE

to:

Code: Select all

G  N  E
L  N  C

which are functionally identical to each other. You can ask in-game and mechanical questions about the person's alignment and how it is affected by actions and both structures will give you the exact same answers.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:32 pm

shadzar wrote:Are you Chaotic? Yes

Are you Good? No, I became Neutral.

It isn't brain surgery, or rocket science.

Either you are Lawful, Chaotic, or in-between.

ALSO, either you are Good, Evil, or In-between.

They NEVER have to cross each other in order to function. Chaos is not the opposite of good, and is not related to it; nor is lawful the opposite of evil or directly related to it. They are separate but both function to give a whole alignment range.

At this point, you're just arguing semantics.

Being chaotic and not good or evil (neutral) is the exact same thing as being chaotic neutral. They don't need to "cross eachother" for these two statements to be the exact same thing.

Lets say a guy hits you with an Axiomatic Holy sword. Are you chaotic? Yes. You take +2d6 damage from the Axiomatic enchantment. Are you evil? No. You take no additional damage from the Holy enchantment. Whether you're "chaotic and not good or evil" or "chaotic neutral" makes no difference.

The system as presented already examines (or is supposed to examine) each half separately. Those nine individual descriptions were (supposed to be) based off of combining each half. Of course, there's a huge amount of inconsistancy in the PHB, espescially regarding law and chaos, but that's a different point.

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:15 pm

Itay K wrote:these alignment descriptions provide highly unintuitive results.

I would instead say that they produce arbitrary results; what is culturally honorable and dishonorable has unrecognizably varied across cultures and even vairied within cultures accross time.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:21 pm

An alignment thread? Sure, why not.

Good vs. Evil is the other vs the self. Good places the importance of others over the importance of oneself. Good is self-sacrificing. Evil places the importance of oneself over the importance of others. Evil is self-serving.

Law vs. Chaos is the group vs. the individual. Law places the importance of the group over the importance of the individual. Law is group-oriented. Chaos places the importance of the individual over the importance of the group. Chaos is individual-oriented.

Lawful Good seeks to benefit the group, even at the expense of the individuals in it. Chaotic Good seeks to benefit the individual, even at the expense of the group they belong to. Lawful Evil seeks to benefit its own group, even at the expense of other individuals in the group. Chaotic Evil seeks to benefit itself, even at the expense of its group.

Of course, each alignment tries to overcome its opposite, as well. Good tries to convert Evil to Good, or (failing that) destroy it. Evil tries to corrupt Good to Evil, or (failing that) destroy it. Ditto Law and Chaos.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:31 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
shadzar wrote:Are you Chaotic? Yes

Are you Good? No, I became Neutral.

It isn't brain surgery, or rocket science.

Either you are Lawful, Chaotic, or in-between.

ALSO, either you are Good, Evil, or In-between.

They NEVER have to cross each other in order to function. Chaos is not the opposite of good, and is not related to it; nor is lawful the opposite of evil or directly related to it. They are separate but both function to give a whole alignment range.
At this point, you're just arguing semantics.

The main problem I always saw with alignment was trying to fit one of 9.

If you don't think of it as 9, but two parts of a whole, then the problem goes away.

You don't have to be good, to be lawful. The paladin is just stuck with both. The rogue can be lawful, but move to being chaotic, and the good factor never change because of it.

The problem is how you move along the paths given.

Trying to move in your 9 block with each action means you are trying to move on both axis at once, and many feel that rather than just going up or down, or left or right, isn't enough and think in a full spacial array, rather than just accept it is two things that are only connection slightly.

Are you right handed or left? Right
Do you prefer Pens or pencils? Pens

Therefore you use a pen in your right hand.

That doesn't mean when you do not use a pen in your right hand, that you are using a pencil in your left. You may use a pencil in your right.

That is the very problem with how people try to combine and look at it like a single line of 9 choices that passes from one to the next.

Just break it out into two parts like it was created.

the law and chaos does not affect the good and evil. It is just that both affect the overall character, and you don't need to try to fit what is a Chaotic Good character in fiction to try to emulate.

Just pick what is chaotic, and act that way, and pick what is good and act that way, and the problem for any alignment based things will resolve themselves.

Just like posting in any forum, I have two pieces (many more actually) of information that are in every post.

Name, Time.

I am not the only one able to post at a specific time, so every post at that time is not me. They just happen to share a use to be connected to each other.

The post I made at this time, is exactly one post.

Likewise alingment is not all a character is, but has those two parts as well. L/C G/E. They help identify one PC from the next, just like class, race, etc so two never really have to be the same.

If all CG PCs played like Robin Hood, it would be a very bland game and system without ability for people to diverge form the "norm". So remove the norm all together.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:56 pm

shadzar wrote:The main problem I always saw with alignment was trying to fit one of 9.

If you don't think of it as 9, but two parts of a whole, then the problem goes away.

There is no difference at all between a 2-part-alignment and two 1-part-alignments.

shadzar wrote:You don't have to be good, to be lawful. The paladin is just stuck with both. The rogue can be lawful, but move to being chaotic, and the good factor never change because of it.

Being lawful good is no different than being lawful and good. Going fro lawful to chaotic while staying good does not differ at all from going from lawful good to chaotic good.

shadzar wrote:Trying to move in your 9 block with each action means you are trying to move on both axis at once, and many feel that rather than just going up or down, or left or right, isn't enough and think in a full spacial array, rather than just accept it is two things that are only connection slightly.

Bullshit. Moving along only one axis works perfectly fine in DnD as written.

shadzar wrote:Are you right handed or left? Right
Do you prefer Pens or pencils? Pens

Therefore you use a pen in your right hand.

That doesn't mean when you do not use a pen in your right hand, that you are using a pencil in your left. You may use a pencil in your right.

That is the very problem with how people try to combine and look at it like a single line of 9 choices that passes from one to the next.

Bullshit. Your system does not support not having an alignment, does it? (Remember, "neutral" also is an alignment). In any case, even if you could have no alignment at all, the same also works with DnD.

shadzar wrote:the law and chaos does not affect the good and evil. It is just that both affect the overall character, and you don't need to try to fit what is a Chaotic Good character in fiction to try to emulate.

Again, bull-fucking-shit. Your system does not chance anything. If you insist on following Robin Hood's example as a chaotic good character you will also follow him when he is a chaotic and good character.

shadzar wrote:Just pick what is chaotic, and act that way, and pick what is good and act that way, and the problem for any alignment based things will resolve themselves.

Just as they do in DnD. Woohoo.

DnD already does what you want to do. Really. The problem with alignment is not that it is a bitfield instead of a set of enumerations. The problem is with the definitions of the nine alignments making no sense.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:50 pm

Murtak wrote:
shadzar wrote:The main problem I always saw with alignment was trying to fit one of 9.

If you don't think of it as 9, but two parts of a whole, then the problem goes away.
There is no difference at all between a 2-part-alignment and two 1-part-alignments.

Lets break out the math for people.

The 9 alignments have 9 alignments. Somebody thought it would be funny to make a 10th which was the same as one of the other 9. You have then 10 finite choices. Now you need to define those finite choices.

THERE is the problem and difference.

With two axis system you are not bound by just 2 sides and the middle, you don't even need the middle, and can remove "neutral" if you want to cut back to 4, or you can add as many gradients in between to have as many variant forms of the alignments you want.

9 is a finite number, while the scale....can scale.

Let us say we add a 4th to the 2 axis system and have undecided on each. This isn't neutral, but just don't know. Now we have used two axis to make 16 alignments.

Try to fit that into the 3x3 grid of the finite 9 alignments to form a 4x4 grid. You cannot because undecided is not really on the axis yet. So you rally can't make your square and have undecided move directly to any other alignment. Does undecided always go to good, evil, or neutral next? Which one leads to undecided?

The problem is trying to define the finite 9 alignments. I had so many people dislike D&D because they didn't understand how to act within the 9 alignments, I explained to them to disregard them and think of only the 2 parts, and they enjoyed the hell out of it, BECAUSE they didn't have to try to fit within a finite square on the grid.

They had the option to move in any way they wanted on the two different axis system or not even worry about one of them and ignore it and only be concerned with the one that mattered to them.

People ar4e just caught up on the major screw-up of 2nd edition (and 1st?) where the alignments were trying to be defined as precise examples, rather than just sticking with the dual-axis system that is all that matters.

I cannot understand that people around here have their heads stuck around this so bad, and only see it as semantic, when the problem is the finite vs variable that occurs in the minds of the players.

Does every action that would cause an alignment shift ALWAYS affect both L/C G/E at the same time and must move both? Does everything checking alignment check to see exactly which of the 9 something conforms to?

I think Detect Evil only looks for one thing, not testing for 9 cases. It doesn't give an ats rass if something is lawful or chaotic either. Only use as much information as you need at the time, and don't bother with one axis when you don't need it. It have solved the problem for EVERYONE I know that had any problems with alignment.

Again, stop trying to be Robin Hood, or Superman, and caring what alignment they would fit into in the game, and just play YOUR game. Was RH always chaotic/unlawful? Was he always good? These are the problems with the finite system of alignments. Only a paladin should ever need worry about both, or a smart DM just removes paladins form the game, and nobody has to bother with needles shit when playing and can concentrate on gaming rather than if they are acting exactly as Robin Hood, or Superman does to conform to the two-part alignment of their choice.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:38 pm

shadzar, I think you're forcing false limitations on the 3x3 system. You can, instead, picture that 3x3 grid as being overlayed on the 2D axis system of alignment. You can literally have a sliding scale and end up in a different position of each of the nine boxes.

Your limitation is that you're assuming the boxes have to be discrete but the two axis system is a sliding scale. This does not need to be the case. Lawful Good can encompass a lot of different alignments.