|
Some friends and I were discussing tabletop campaigns, and the subject of character alignment came up. Obviously there's the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic axis and the Good-Neutral-Evil axis, and you can visualize that in a square. So when someone brought up the idea of an alignment cube with a third axis, we were briefly speculating on what it would be. We didn't delve too deeply into it, so I figured this would be a good place to spark discussion about it. Obviously there are people who wouldn't even entertain the idea, but it's an interesting topic nonetheless. Good suggestions here might be put into use for future campaigns if I can recommend them to others who want to get a campaign of some RPG or another going. One idea was a Naive/Worldly scale, as in your worldview is either narrow or broad, but that was shouted down pretty quickly since Neutral would be hard to represent. Another suggestion was Selfish/Selfless - are you only in it for yourself, or do you act on the benefit of your clan/race/class/nation, or in the case of Neutral do you try to create a balance? However, Chaotic alignments kind of throw that off. A Religious/Atheist scale was also brought up with Agnostic in the middle, which could feasibly work, but in a fantasy world where magic exists it's a question of whether you can be anything but faithful to something unless you have scientific explanations for your ability to cast magic spells. I feel like in order to use a third axis in a game, it would have to be something more fundamental than a character trait like faith or worldview, and some of the suggestions could be covered by already existing alignments anyway. Hence, discussion. Has anyone ever used one, or heard of one being used in a campaign of something? sticklefifer fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 22, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
I've though about it in passing before and my go-to for a third axis would probably be along the lines of "assholery vs reservedness," though this may be better saved for RP flavor. A Reserved Chaotic Evil character would love to see and cause destruction and chaos, but never claim it as his own if he can at all help it or outwardly show how much he enjoys it; a stoic sociopath kind of dealie. An all-around creepy kind of guy, but it's no more than a gut feeling until he's whispering into your ear how beautiful it feels to shove an icepick into someone's brain and stir it around just as he does it to you. An example in modern lit would be... hell, take your pick from most of Terry Pratchett's villains, though Jonathan Teatime is the most immediate one that comes to mind. rear end in a top hat Chaotic Evil would be fairly obvious and probably the archetypical Chaotic Evil you generally see. A middle-of-the-way Lawful Evil character would be like any modern billionaire: generally demure and diplomatic, but they get a kick out of occasionally dropping something really nasty just to stoke the fire and remind people that no matter how angry they get, they'll never touch the guy who just poo poo-talked them to their face. rear end in a top hat Lawful Good is that loving Paladin who jumps out of hiding to and ruins a nightwatch sting, and then makes everyone shake hands and hug afterwards while shouting the Heironeous equivalent of quoting Psalms. He's pushy and forceful and annoying and even though he's a hero who does great and admirable deeds, there isn't a single person up the entire Sword Coast who doesn't look forward to the day he hauls his poo poo-don't-stink rear end out of their region for good. Reserved Chaotic Good is the one bard in the entire world who only does ensemble instrumentals or tells stories that aren't blatant self-inserts about Really Neutral Good is an adventurer who tries to offset his reputation for acts of heroism with lots of minor acts of shitlordery. He's always got a nasty joke with good timing. Maybe he's surly and pretends to be villainous so people don't think too highly of him; maybe he just really hates cats and, after saving a family from a burning building, compulsively kicks the little girl's kitty a hundred feet and chuckles about his "new personal best." He's not an outright rear end in a top hat, but he goes out of his way to show he's not nearly as straight-edge as he actually is. Truly True Neutral is pretty much any of those annoying hipster cocklords from your Philosophy 101 course your first year in college who couldn't shut up about "maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle  ," which unsurprisingly probably describes a lot of Druids, too, come to think of it.I mean, it's a little on the jokey side, but I think it makes for a fairly legit axis without forcing characters to bring traits like religion or charity into the question while enriching the possibilities for the kind of character they want to portray. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Depending on the campaign and the metaphysics, I do think a 'faith' scale running from 'atheistic' to 'zealous' could work. Borrowing from the Discworld again, it's possible to have a setting with both active gods and atheists in-- you just have to nudge the definitions away from 'lack of belief in the supernatural' to 'lack of faith'. You know the gods exist, but you may or may not think they're worth your time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
True, zealotry vs. abstaining from anything spiritual is an interesting scale. I like rear end in a top hat/Reserved too, and it's something I'd thought about but I think I called it "Stoic/Egotistical". Though I feel Stoic or Reserved would be at the Neutral point in that scale, so I guess the opposite end of bravado would be either humility or perhaps even low self-worth. Maybe Egotistical/Stoic/Humble. One I'm now really considering is Social Class. Highborn/Middle/Peasant can really color a character's actions and motivations, and applies to all sorts of archetypes. Highborn Chaotic Evil could be a pretty scary force - a terrorist with money to burn - while Highborn Lawful Evil would be more like an organized crime boss. Peasant Chaotic Good is a good vigilante from the streets type of story, while Peasant Lawful Good would be your farmboy-turned-hero/Onion Knight type character. The middle ground would then be Proletariat/Tradesmen, which would would give each of the other combinations new depth. Union workers, for example, could be either Proletariat Lawful Good or Evil depending on their organizations' aims (for workers rights = good, for control and power = evil), while Chaotic Tradesmen easily fall under archetypes like gypsies and carnivals. That's definitely one to consider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
A more serious way to implement the milquetoast/jerk axis might be to phrase it as how likely you are to try to enforce your alignment/worldview/whatever on others, in a Passive/Zealous sort of way. So the tyrant who runs a police state, enforcing order through constant excessive force because it's Better That Way (tm) is Zealously Lawful Evil, and the Druid who believes in cosmic balance as a thing to strive for is Zealously True Neutral. Meanwhile, the hermit who lives atop the mountain and thinks the emperor is ruining the land, but that it's not his place to do anything about it is Passively Chaotic Good. Basically using it as intensity; strapping a moral position onto alignment is sort of destined to look funky since D&D alignment isn't really about morals. Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are cosmic forces in D&D cosmology.
Heatwizard fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
The Competent-Mediocre-Incompetent axis, denoting how good you are at actually acting like your alignment. "Why are you stabbing orphans? You're supposed to be Lawful Good, aren't you?" "Incompetent Lawful Good." "Ah, carry on." This allows people to access alignment-restrictive classes and feats without feeling constrained by their inability to go five minutes without trying to stab a teammate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
In order to better relate to a growing population of potential D&D fans while not snubbing old schoolers, I propose the new thiird alignment axis be a measurement of Anime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:In order to better relate to a growing population of potential D&D fans while not snubbing old schoolers, I propose the new thiird alignment axis be a measurement of Anime. "Yeah, I'm Chaotic Goku Neutral, I'll spend all session screaming about how random I am." "Well, I'm Lawful Shinji Good, I'll be whining about how I mustn't run away from the demon."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
I think the privilege spectrum has a lot to offer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:In order to better relate to a growing population of potential D&D fans while not snubbing old schoolers, I propose the new thiird alignment axis be a measurement of Anime. Kawaii-Tsundere-Senpai.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Threadshitting ends now, guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Heatwizard posted:A more serious way to implement the milquetoast/jerk axis might be to phrase it as how likely you are to try to enforce your alignment/worldview/whatever on others, in a Passive/Zealous sort of way. So the tyrant who runs a police state, enforcing order through constant excessive force because it's Better That Way (tm) is Zealously Lawful Evil, and the Druid who believes in cosmic balance as a thing to strive for is Zealously True Neutral. Meanwhile, the hermit who lives atop the mountain and thinks the emperor is ruining the land, but that it's not his place to do anything about it is Passively Chaotic Good. Basically using it as intensity; strapping a moral position onto alignment is sort of destined to look funky since D&D alignment isn't really about morals. Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are cosmic forces in D&D cosmology. I quite like intensity of belief being a driving force. Essentially hardcore proselytizing/crusading vs. a live-and-let-live mentality. My only question is how would you represent Neutral on that scale? Ideally, a third axis would have Neutral/Neutral/Neutral right in the middle, so in what ways could someone using this scale differentiate, say, Lawful Good Neutral from Lawful Good Passive? Or True Neutral from Neutral Neutral Passive? Or if it's determined that Passive = Neutral, is there another extreme opposite Zealous?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:I quite like intensity of belief being a driving force. Essentially hardcore proselytizing/crusading vs. a live-and-let-live mentality. My only question is how would you represent Neutral on that scale? Ideally, a third axis would have Neutral/Neutral/Neutral right in the middle, so in what ways could someone using this scale differentiate, say, Lawful Good Neutral from Lawful Good Passive? Or True Neutral from Neutral Neutral Passive? It's hard to imagine the middle of an 'intensity' spectrum being anything other than just 'somewhere in between zealous and removed.' You could have Lawful Good Passive be someone who is Lawful Good and who is only concerned with being Lawful Good themselves, Lawful Good Neutral being someone who tries to convince others of the rightness of being Lawful Good, and Lawful Good Aggressive someone who goes out to kill Chaotic Evil types. Alternately, you could have the third-axis be some sort of 'tolerance spectrum.' On the one end you have characters who only tolerate their own nine-point alignment, on the other you have those who tolerate everyone, and in the middle those who tolerate 1 step away from where they are (or maybe any who agree on at least one axis?). Then at least you could have a Lawful Good Tolerant Paladin who doesn't feel like he needs to fight the Rogue every time he steals something in order to roleplay. On the flip side it gives players who choose Intolerant more of an excuse to be assholes to the rest of the party, if their alignments disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
ianvincible posted:It's hard to imagine the middle of an 'intensity' spectrum being anything other than just 'somewhere in between zealous and removed.' You could have Lawful Good Passive be someone who is Lawful Good and who is only concerned with being Lawful Good themselves, Lawful Good Neutral being someone who tries to convince others of the rightness of being Lawful Good, and Lawful Good Aggressive someone who goes out to kill Chaotic Evil types. I don't know, it could be something closer to the worldviews in Wisher, Theurge, Fatalist in terms of how much personal investment you feel from your deity. Take the book of Job for instance: Wisher: We will all have challenges. I only hope that I can keep my faith through things that are half as tough as Job's trials. Theurge: The Lord works in mysterious ways. It is vain to assume that you could understand what he has in store for us. Fatalist: Sometimes god's a dick 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
In a changing, turn-of-the-century setting where magic's time is ending and science's time is beginning, a Faith vs Reason alignment could be useful. If you're into alignment axes, there are worse ways to go. I mean it worked for Arcanum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
I admit, I kind of like the Zealous/Passive idea. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing that really needs codifying, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:I quite like intensity of belief being a driving force. Essentially hardcore proselytizing/crusading vs. a live-and-let-live mentality. My only question is how would you represent Neutral on that scale? Ideally, a third axis would have Neutral/Neutral/Neutral right in the middle, so in what ways could someone using this scale differentiate, say, Lawful Good Neutral from Lawful Good Passive? Or True Neutral from Neutral Neutral Passive? I figure Neutral would be baseline Average Joe; you'll bitch at the bar or whatever about how the Man is keeping you down and rules are made to be broken, but you're not about to actually go grab a sword and start a rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:The Competent-Mediocre-Incompetent axis, denoting how good you are at actually acting like your alignment. I love this. It separates the "my dude is a superhero" types from those of us who prefer a more slapstick approach. (though I might word it talented/competent/useless). So a useless lawful good character is essentially Inspector Clueso. And useless chaotic evil is more of a Dr. Evil type. A competent good character might be a rookie cop, or an old, jaded (but tired) one. A talented character is much more like the standard RPG player character. Great and powerful heroes, with no foibles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Honest, Uncertain, Lying Sort of like Fuego's, only the spectrum isn't about whether or not you're good at being chaotic evil, but if you think of yourself as chaotic evil. Some people are absolutely 120% committed to their ideologies, like the Chaotic Evil Monk who genuinely enjoys hurting people and lacks any self-direction. But maybe there's a Barbarian whose dad was Bartok the Despoiler and he's really, really trying to fill his shoes as Hordemaster but isn't sure if he is a slavering force of evil. Or the Sorcerer who wants everyone to think she's an unpredictable, chaotic force of violence, because that means people will do what she says. Or maybe you talk a big game about how you're neutral and don't give a poo poo about moral crises and what-not, but deep down, injustice gets to you. Or you're a Lawful Good Paladin who knows it's all an act to get chicks. I suppose it's really a "Are you struggling with your morality: yes/no" with two "no" options, but it gives a hint to your party/DM about where you stand for internal conflict. Alternatively, an open spectrum that would be Lawful+Neutral+_______ where the last one would be another character you're similar to. So Chaotic Evil Dobbs from Treasure of the Sierra Madre vs Chaotic Evil Patrick Bateman vs Chaotic Evil Cobra Commander, the difference between being viciously self-interested, a total sociopath, and a cartoon supervillain. Maybe even Chaotic Neutral Landerig or Lawful Good Tumblr, if your game is like that. Not so much a third "spectrum," but Alignment is really more about showing clear, simplified flags to give indication of what your character is like. Also, you could have a team of all Batmans of differing alignment, the Lawful Evil Dark Knight Rogue, the Lawful Good Allen West Fighter, the Chaotic Neutral I'M THE GODDAMN BATMAN (Bata)ranger... (major twist--story is set in Bruce Wayne's subconscious).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
I remember some of the people working on Barkley 2 throwing around the idea of a Might vs Magic axis for alignment.
Mr. Lobe fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Bumping this back up because the topic came up again with some of the same people, and we all agreed upon a 3rd axis for a potential campaign: "Ethos" "Ethos can simply mean the disposition, character, or fundamental values particular to a specific person, people, corporation, culture, or movement. The Ethos refers to the spirit which motivates the ideas and customs." The Ethos scale is basically the scope of one's association with others, and whether their motivations/goals apply to the masses or to the individual. I'm not sure what we'd call each extreme yet (so I went with "Many/Balance/Few" placeholders and I'm open to suggestions), but here's what we discussed in terms of what each end of the scale represents: Many: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Your purpose is to be a cog in a much larger machine, and your actions affect the masses. You work toward the benefit of your race, culture, political alignment, or cause, whether you're an insane terrorist or a heroic champion. That may apply to your kind corrupting power over an entire kingdom (lawful evil), the total destruction of all things (chaotic evil), live-and-let-live for the masses (neutral), truth and justice for all mankind (lawful good), or tearing down the system and establishing a new way of life (chaotic good). Working toward personal goals and introspection is selfish and spiteful, and all who strive for solitude are your enemy. Few: The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. You are not cogs in a machine, you (and maybe your party on a good day) are truly free individuals with hopes and dreams, and you're relentlessly competitive to be the best in your chosen field. Loyalty to race and culture are absurd to you, and political affiliation is ridiculous. Whatever the trend or social movement, you refuse to participate in the hive-mind. You don't even like anarchism because it's a label. Chaotics may actively seek to liberate others from the wool pulled over their eyes by the trappings of borders and social constructs. If you're good, you still only have your best interests in mind - you will protect the innocent and fight for justice, if it fits in with your personal agenda and you happen to stumble upon something you perceive as unjust. Whether you do that within the law depends on your law/chaos axis. Neutrals of this alignment abstain from all such matters and focus only on themselves, and are the most focused on self-awareness and self-actualization as a concept. Evils are aggressively selfish and are the most "gently caress you, got mine" of the entire ethos alignment (as opposed to the Many being "gently caress you all, got ours"). In all of these cases, you don't like being defined as an alignment in the first place, so what does it even matter? Balance: The neutral/middle alignment sees the perspective of treating all people equally, and not favoring anyone over the other. Peasants are of equal importance and consequence as kings. In lawful good, the masses are just as important as the self, and making oneself whole causes the masses to be whole - we can all be heroes. In chaotic good, you believe all should strive for a universal morality, regardless of law. Neutral alignments might truly reinforce this ethos by separating themselves from material goods - a good fit for monk classes - as no person nor thing nor cause nor quest can be more or less important than another. Lawful evil may have an agenda to the self, but one that doesn't violate his own code nor put himself above or below others. Chaotic evil hates everyone equally, including himself. At this point I'm looking at better names for the points on the scale, and any pre-existing alignments that would outright contradict any of these - like if somehow chaotic-neutral-many or neutral-good-few couldn't realistically exist - though I think people are creative enough that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:Many/Few/Balance This feels very much like another version of chaos vs lawful, still the idea might not require too much re-imagining; Many cares about everyone, few cares about a very small group, i.e. their family/friends and balance being a much larger group i.e. your race or alignment. That's my tuppence anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
To be honest, I think that the third axis, per se, should be "ideology", although there is always the talk on how some ideologies are closer to normal alignment, such as nazi-fascism on lawful good and anarcho-communism on chaotic evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
sticklefifer posted:Bumping this back up because the topic came up again with some of the same people, and we all agreed upon a 3rd axis for a potential campaign: "Ethos" Universal vs. Personal Someone who is Universal in belief thinks that their way is the best or only way for reality to be. Someone who is personal in their belief feels that, for whatever reason, their outlook is for themselves alone and unique to them, and may even seek to stop others of similar alignment from spreading it; for example, a Personal Chaotic Evil fighter may try desperately to annihilate an evil army, because they're taking down all the weak victims he himself could exploit, and spends most of his time trying to stop other chaotic evil characters in order to make sure the world is ripe for his taking. A Universal Chaotic Neutral character may think that everyone else needs to be reminded of the uncaring and aimless nature of the universe, and so undermines all attempts at order and subverts or makes a laughingstock of both heinous villains and valorous heroes alike. A Neutral character, along this axis, is someone who thinks that either only some people can be like he is, like a special group or organization, or else that his alignment can function perfectly well with others. More to come if there is interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:55
|
|
