Outside of the standard Law-Chaos, Good-Evil spectrum, just how many axes of morality can you think of?
>>44882972
We have to split up LG a little more.
>Deontological Lawful good
>Utilitarian Lawful good
>Stoic lawful good
>>44882972
I'm Lawful Evil IRL. :D
>>44883393
Are you a lawyer or are you a cop?
>>44882972
Utilitarian vs. Anti-Utilitarian
Increase the net total amount of utility in the world vs. FUCK EVERYONE, ULTIMATE SUFFERING EVERYWHERE
>>44882972
Here's two:
Nature-Technology
Society-Individual
Hope-Nihilism
>>44882972
Got a good idea for a three axis one. A character can be
>Pragmatic
>Idealistic
>Selfish
The further one goes down each axis the more "evil" one could be seen to be, as their ideals become more extreme and frightening. The "good" individuals, though, tend to cluster around the middle of the axes- a person who is moderately and equally pragmatic, idealistic, and selfish has a greater understanding of others and is able to understand the desires of others and work towards an ideal without falling deep into evil or hedonism.
I just realized I'm spouting out a Freudian lecture.
>>44883561
“The point that in the absence of birth nobody exists who can be deprived of happiness is terribly conspicuous. For optimists, this fact plays no part in their existential computations. For pessimists, however, it is axiomatic. Whether a pessimist urges us to live “heroically” with a knife in our gut or denounces life as not worth living is immaterial. What matters is that he makes no bones about hurt being the Great Problem it is incumbent on philosophy to observe. But this problem can be solved only by establishing an imbalance between hurt and happiness that would enable us in principle to say which is more desirable—existence or nonexistence. While no airtight case has ever been made regarding the undesirability of human life, pessimists still run themselves ragged trying to make one. Optimists have no comparable mission. When they do argue for the desirability of human life it is only in reaction to pessimists arguing the opposite, even though no airtight case has ever been made regarding that desirability. Optimism has always been an undeclared policy of human culture—one that grew out of our animal instincts to survive and reproduce—rather than an articulated body of thought. It is the default condition of our blood and cannot be effectively questioned by our minds or put in grave doubt by our pains. This would explain why at any given time there are more cannibals than philosophical pessimists.”
― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race
Reminder that in any setting that isn't fucking retarded, Alignment refers to your literal ALIGNMENT with the cosmic forces and not to some sort of objective measure of morality.
>>44884007
Or just your stance on topics important to the world. D&D uses good vs evil and law vs chaos because those are kind of really important to the cosmic balance there. But communist vs capitalist could even be an axis if you played a game in 1950s China. Self determination vs hedonism could work for a game mimicking the themes of the Fountainhead. I currently use service to self vs service to others that I shamelessly rip from the Cassiopeia transcripts thing.
>>44882972
Motivated-Apathetic
>>44883967
“Compassion for human hurt, a humble sense of our impermanence, an absolute valuation of justice—all of our so-called virtues only trouble us and serve to bolster, not assuage, horror. In addition, these qualities are our least vital, the least in line with life. More often than not, they stand in the way of one’s rise in the welter of this world, which found its pace long ago and has not deviated from it since. The putative affirmations of life—each of them based on the propaganda of Tomorrow: reproduction, revolution in its widest sense, piety in any form you can name—are only affirmations of our desires. And, in fact, these affirmations affirm nothing but our penchant for self-torment, our mania to preserve a demented innocence in the face of gruesome facts."
>Under the roll - Over the roll
Get rid of Lawful, that's not the opposite of Chaotic. You currently can't represent a very orderly person who respects no laws. Whether you break the fucking written law as a murderhobo in a land of fantasy-evil kingdoms doesn't make ANY statement on what your character's actual moral outlook is - at best it determines how stupid they might be.
>>44883706
Anon, that's three.
>>44884911
>Lasers - Feelings.
Ruggedly Handsome - Androgynously Beautiful
The scale on which all male movie heroes exist somewhere.
I don't know what you use for women.
> Racist / Lazy
> Above the sheets / Below the sheets
> Religious / Spiritual
> Coaster-user / Non-coaster-user
>>44885245
Ideally lawful and chaotic would just define whether a person follows a code of conduct, their own or not, or if they act whichever way fits better their morals.
Lawful would be methodological, consistent, down to the earth with their decisions, sometimes predictable and so on, chaotic being more about acting on the fly, less efficiency but more adaptable.
Introverting-Extroverting
Sensing-Intuiting
Thinking-Feeling
Judging-PerceivingThe second one is pure bullshit though.
>>44884299
Can confirm, I identify as lazy-kin.
>>44885488
> Coaster-user / Non-coaster-user
the true measurement of evil.
>>44885245
Law doesn't mean obeying Statute 107.6/c of whatever country you're in to the letter, it means you're comfortable playing by the rules, being disciplined, living within a hierarchy, and not calling the shots 100% of the time.
You're an orderly person, not Bureaucrat 1.0.
>>44885324
Math-BadAtMath
Soft-walking / StompingThis is actually a measure of how much thought you give to others unless you're alone in your building.
>>44884254
>a game mimicking the themes of The Fountainhead
Anon, you're worrying me. People wouldn't DO that, would they?
>>44882972
Chaotic Good (both in the sense of impulsive/disorderly and the sense of not respecting the state)
>>44883561
Virtue, anon.
>>44883706
Neutral on all three axes.
>>44883733
He was neutral evil.
>>44883906
Idealistic as fuck here.
>>44884299
Neutral to apathetic.
>>44885390
Feelings-ish.
>>44885414
The women's scale would be sexybutch - Jessica Rabbit
>>44885488
Lazy, Below, Spiritual, Coaster-user
>>44885534
ENFP
Now you know my alignment. Someone should make an RPG that uses this alignment system.
>>44885802
>Someone should make an RPG that uses this alignment system.
They did. It's called IRL.
>>44885802
>Someone should make an RPG that uses this alignment system
Well, if we use most of the ones posted, we would get an alignment system with all of this:
Utilitarian - Neutral - Stylistic
Technology - Neutral - Nature
Individual - Neutral - Society
Nihilism - Neutral - Faith
Communist - Neutral - Capitalism
Hedonism - Neutral - Self-discipline
Motivated - Neutral - Procrastinatory
Empathy - Neutral - Apathy
Religious - Neutral - Spiritual
Still, would be worth it, at least to be able to have a magic user with Detect Communism.
>>44885802
>Jessica Rabbit
I like you.
Constructive VS. Destructive, and Selfless VS. Selfish.
>>44882972
>Does the person put others before themselves in nearly all cases, or themselves before others?
Selfless <-> Selfish
>Are they reasonable in fulfilling their morals and willing to compromise, or are they hard set on their standards?
Pragmatic <-> Idealistic
>Do they feel whatever code of law they adhere to must be obeyed and enforced unerringly, or are they willing to bend spirit of the law as circumstances require?
Just <-> Merciful
>Are they hopeful and optimistic for the future, or are they jaded and wanting to return to a better past?
Progressive <-> Reactionary
For example, a selfless pragmatic just progressive would be willing to sacrifice their wants to a degree in order to advance their society, but gives no compassion to those who break the law.
A selfish idealistic merciful reactionary would perhaps be some kind of individualistic barbarian, wishing to return to the way things were before everything went to shit, but is quick to forgive slights against his moral law.
>>44882972
I like to add a stupid dimension to the chart.
>>44886501
You still need authoritarian/anarchist since even with capitalism/communism you could have everything from Stalin to Makhno (anarcho-communist who fought against the USSR under a flag that read "death to all who oppose the freedom of the working class") and on the right you have everything from Rush Limbaugh to ancappy types.
>>44887165
>Rush Limbaugh
>authoritarian capitalist
acknowledging law doesn't make you an authoritarian, anon.
>>44887229
Insisting on strict immigration laws, strong police force, wanting to invade other countries, etc., does.
Who would you consider an authoritarian capitalist, then?
>inb4 you claim capitalism is inherently free so it's an incoherent concept
>>44887269
>Who would you consider an authoritarian capitalist, then?
A state capitalist with strong imperialistic sympathies.
>>44887165
Would Liberal/Conservative be another possible addition?
>>44887542
We already have that on the normal alignment scale, anon. Good/Evil
>>44887646
>implying
It's polynomial, not linear.
NO BREAKS ON THE PROGRESS TRAIN: Evil
Hey guys we can do better!: Good
Here is pretty good desu senpai: Meh
Maybe we should slow down a bit and rethink out choices: Good
ALL HAIL THE KING: Evil
>>44882972
Guys i have a problem.
How do i differentiate between Neutral and Chaotic.
Sure someone who'd lawful folllows a personal/universal code of conduct, but i have no idea about the difference between neutral and chaotic.
>>44885534
INTP.
>>44888559
From AD&D just because I had the page earmarked from earlier.
>>44888652
>>44888652
>above respect for life chaotic neutral places disorder
that is evil though.
>laws and order are disdained by chaotic evil
same as neutral evil.
>neutral evil disdains chaos
that doesn't make sense.
>chaotic good
>literally the same as neutral good because they also place value on the life and welfare of individuals which is only possible with some regulation since evil exists.
Thanks but this did not help.
>>44888694
>>44888745
What i mean is: Anyone wishing to bring more chaos to society or the people, instead of just being chaotic in their actions is inherently evil since chaos always invariably results in problems for people, since it's more difficult to make predictions in a chaotic environment and without predictions you have no way of knowing the best course of action for yourself to take.
Im partial to the color alignment system myself. Never played mtg, but I like to variety that can come from color mixes.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?157001-Alignment-Replacement-The-Color-Wheel-3-5-PEACH
Has some good info on how to transition to color wheel.
Something I'm toying with for PoL/Dawn War outside of 4e.
>>44888745
>above respect for life chaotic neutral places disorder
>that is evil though.
Only from the outside looking in. Consider them Autists.
>neutral evil disdains chaos
>that doesn't make sense.
Keeping a handle on things does indeed make sense.
>laws and order are disdained by chaotic evil
>same as neutral evil.
Except you didn't read neutral evil.
>literally the same as neutral good because they also place value on the life and welfare of individuals which is only possible with some regulation since evil exists.
Except that neutral good seeks to benefit all creatures involved while chaos let's them not care where things land after taking action.
NG - utopian balance
NC - constant strife balance
>>44888770
yeah idk. sorry it's all I had.
>>44889098
Except for turning Chaotic Evil into something that seems relatively benign this is literally a re-skin of the normal alignment chart.
>>44889098
>guardian: neither adhere to a rigid code, nor forego one
yeah this is the kind of bullshit that makes me not get the allignment chart
you either HAVE rules or you don't.
do good for goods sake.
what is the difference between the freedom fighter and the guardian?
what is the difference between wildcard and balanced?
what is the difference between self serving and balanced? what does balanced strive for if not personal gain
what's the difference between renegade and self serving? both worry only about the goals they personally care about
>>44889198
It's meant as a more "realistic" chart.
>>44885802
Nazis were Lawful Evil anon, Lawful Evil can do shit that's just as heinous as the other Evils, they just file paperwork for it before and after.
>>44889273
>Nazis
>Evil
OY VEY!
Oh look another alignment thread. Again.
People aren't one dimensional. For example my buddy didn't have a problem when ruler of the city forced couple of thousands to be thrown out of the city. But when he found out that NPC he was fond of was somewhere in that crowd he wanted to kill the ruler.
If you really, really, really need to play with alignments then at least use RIFTS alignments in your games.
>>44889237
chaotic and neutral aren't different, which is why 5e had the options good, lawful good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil. It's coherent. It made sense.
Good/Evil is fine
Law really puts two unrelated things together, a personal code and social conformity.
>>44884007
Faggot detected
>>44889237
I'll explain Neutral Good to you anon, Neutral Good acts for the highest net value of good regardless of whether or not the action is Lawful or Chaotic.
Now Chaotic Good by comparison acts for the greatest net value of either Good or Fuck The Police, erring on the side of Good if the two are in conflict even though they aren't necessarily happy about it.
Lawful Good by contrast acts for the greatest net value of Good and Order, again erring on the side of Good if there's a direct conflict, but feeling kind of guilty about it afterword.
>>44889426
That... Makes sense.
>>44889472
See the thing is, if you think too hard about it, fuck the police is an attitude that can never really be truly good.
a) fucking someone over does harm to at least that one person
b) chaos as i explained above is bad for all individuals because they have a tougher time making good decisions for themselves
lawful on the other hand can be good albeit a bit difficult, since the law doesn't always lay out the best course of action... give me a second i'll draw something
>>44889545
>See the thing is, if you think too hard about it, fuck the police is an attitude that can never really be truly good.
>a) fucking someone over does harm to at least that one person
But what if that one person is Evil, or at least kind of a dick?
>>44883906
That's nice. Simple too. Would it translate to saying "My character is a pragmatically selfless druid" dropping their mention of ideals to indicate neutrality on ideals?
>>44882972
Which do you value more?
1) Personal freedoms for the individual, duty to your community and social structure, or neither?
2) Quick and decisive actions, careful planning and patience, or neither?
3) Personal gain at the expense of others, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, or neither?
Done.
>>44889619
It's still harming a person. Even evil people are dicks.
>>44889788
If you aren't harming evil you aren't being serious about being good.
>>44889545
>See the thing is, if you think too hard about it, fuck the police is an attitude that can never really be truly good.
>a) fucking someone over does harm to at least that one person
The entire point of having a non-linear alignment system, is that there is no "truly good" and "truly evil".
There is chaotic good, and lawful good, and there is some middle ground.
I mean fine, you think Chaotic Good can't be truly good, fine.
You are a paladin. You are escorting a pregnant woman to a holy site near town, to ask for a blessing on her unborn child.
You are attacked by a group of orcs. You fight them off, but they take the woman.
You try to run after them, but they're on horses.
You spot a horse nearby tied to a post, but the owner is nowhere in sight. You cannot take the horse, for without permission it would be stealing, even if you plan to return it, and you shan't commit such a crime.
You have just doomed a pregnant woman to being a slave to an orcish camp, and her child will probably be killed by them, because you have no way of catching up to them by the time you find the owner and convince him to lend you his horse.
>Okay, then neutral good is true good
Yeah, because the first time you take the horse and then later return it, it will turn out that said horse belonged to an imperial messenger, who had vital information that would have saved the king's life, and half the realm with it. But you had to take the horse, because you were trying to do a good deed, and you planned on returning it anyway, only it was too late.
The entire point, is that the world is big and complicated.That being said, chaotic isn't "fuck the police". That would technically be a form of neutral or even lawful. Generally people who use the term want a different system, not no system at all. Chaotic wants in some sphere of life complete freedom. Not being told what is right and wrong.
Here's my idea.
>Good:
Split weakly into Good Chaotic and Good Lawful.
-Good (Lawful) side is mainly trying to be good, and using the law as a basis to build upon. They can realize that the laws are unjust and not serving the greater good however.
-Good (Chaotic) side is mainly trying to be good, and using personal freedom to build upon. They can realize that personal freedom may be limited for the greater good however.
>Lawful Good:
This person is using the law or a personal moral code before everything else. If anything would contradict their law, it is deemed automatically undesirable, however their law is oriented towards the greater good.
>Chaotic Good:
This person considers all laws to be restrictive and strives for personal freedoms for everyone before anything else. The freedoms they value the most however are good and non harmful.
>True Neutral:
This person serves self interest first and foremost no matter whether it coincides with personal freedoms for himself or regulations for others, or granting others freedoms and following his legal obligations.
>Lawful Evil:
This person is using the law or a personal moral code before everything else. If anything would contradict their law, it is deemed automatically undesirable, however their law is oriented towards opressing others and is causing more harm than good.
>Chaotic Evil:
This person considers all laws to be restrictive and strives for personal freedoms for everyone before anything else. The freedoms they value the most however are harmful for others and not good.
>Evil:
Split weakly into Evil Chaotic and Evil Lawful.
-Evil (Lawful) side is mainly trying to cause harm, and using the law or a personal code as a basis to build upon. They can realize that the laws are limiting and not serving the greater goal however.
-Evil (Chaotic) side is mainly trying to cause harm, and using personal freedom to build upon. They can realize that personal freedom may have to be limited for the greater goal however.
>>44890059
>that would have
Irrelevant.
You cannot base decisions and morality upon things that you don't know about.
>>44889913
this, basically.
>>44890154
Congratulations then! You are Chaotic!
You've decided that your personal view of what is the good thing to do, out weighs the system. You do not believe that the system has to be upheld for it assures security, instead, since it's more convenient, you will take the horse, damn be the consequences.
If you're the Anon I'm replying to: Maybe this is the reason you can't see the difference between neutral and chaotic.
Chaotic just seems neutral to you, because it is your neutral.
>>44890059
>Chaotic wants in some sphere of life complete freedom. Not being told what is right and wrong
...that's exactly what I meant by Fuck The Police.
To elaborate on
>>44890110
GL: jugde judy
GC: buddhists
LG: judge dredd&co
CG: most revolutionaries
TN: CEOs
LE: "lawyers"
CE: che guevara
EL: most movei villains
EC: "do i look like a man with a plan" joker
>>44890195
Well no. I do not want chaos. So i am neutral.
Just because i base my decisions on personal judgement instead of a generalized rule of law that may or may not fit the current situation well, doesn't mean i'm chaotic.
Otherwise someone who runs into a burning building to rescue a trapped little girl would automatically be chaotic, since you technically broke in.
What would a neutral person have done in that situation?
See this is why i think the current system is shit. You can only violate the law and take the horse, or uphold the law and not take the horse.... there's no middle ground.
>>44890349
>LG: judge dredd&co
Best alignment desu.
>>44890391
uuuuuhhhhh
whatever floats your boat buddy
>>44890349
>Well no. I do not want chaos. So i am neutral.
Chaotic people don't neccessarily want chaos, just as much as lawful people don't neccessarily want to make their personal code by which they'll live and die any sort of "law".
Chaotic people simply go with the flow of things.
But fine, let's say you're Good Chaotic from that personal alignment system of yours.
What really makes you chaotic in this situation, isn't that you want to take the horse, it's your little comment about the "what if" being irrelevant.
The law is the law for a reason. A lawful person, a paladin would look at that horse, and see a man in need of a horse. Who else would own a horse? He owns that horse, it is his horse, and he lives his life, expecting that horse to be there when he needs it. This trust in his own property must not be violated.
A neutral person, would see a horse that doesn't belong to them. A horse they may take, since the situation calls for it, but which should not be done often, and just when certain criteria are met.
A chaotic person, would be someone who looks at the horse, and sees a solution for the current problem, and not more.
There is plenty of difference between neutral and lawful/chaotic, but it's done to reasoning.
That is why the system is good. It allows for real roleplaying.
Making it a part of the game mechanics puts a hamper on that, but in concept, law and chaos, and neutral in between are important.
how about
>extroverted/introverted
>sensing/intuition
>thinking/feeling
>>44883522
>Job
When you can lie to the government and get money for free for a bunch of fake illnesses?
Sir, I think not.
>>44890424
That sounds like criminal talk, criminal.
>>44890521
>being a degenerate leech on society
Have you no shame?
>>44890500
>Chaotic people simply go with the flow of things.
but i didn't
i have a personal code that mandates that i use my brain, and that the life of a person being at stake supercedes any property laws.
>The law is the law for a reason
that reason being usually
>because it's always been this way
>because my religion demands it, and i'm one of many
>because my personal tastes demand it and i'm one of many
>because it benefits me and my powerful rich buddies in some way
>This trust in his own property must not be violated.
right now he doesn't need it and right now i need it.
> just when certain criteria are met.
like a life being at stake
>and not more
this makes them dumb not chaotic, and evil not good.
if i see a piece of ducttape holding together something that is saving another persons life but i really need ducttape to fix my bike so i may chase after some criminals, i am an evil motherfucker if i take it.
every action can only be chaotic or lawful.
so the "neutral" category doesn't make sense.
obviously no one will always take the lawful action or the chaotic action in every given situation, because that would mean that they lack a brain. but that's just a bit of wiggle room inside the categories, not actually a separate category.
there's also not going to be people right in the middle, because that would mean you have no tendency towards either personal freedoms or law despite having tried both a lot of times which would again make you a brainless automaton
>>44890500
and again as i said here>>44890349
>Otherwise someone who runs into a burning building to rescue a trapped little girl would automatically be chaotic, since you technically broke in.
Are paladins saving people from burning buildings automatically chaotic in alignment?
lawful evil would be like taxes more than lawyers.
>>44890853
>taxes
>evil
I want the libertarians to leave.
>>44890706
You have to see the diffence between a burning building and a horse, however it does come down to what the code is.
Regardless, I made my point that Non-Lawful =/= Chaotic.
This entire:
>>The law is the law for a reason
>that reason being usually
bit:
I was talking as from the point of view of someone who respects the law as a universal constant. Someone who believes in upholding the local laws, won't write them off the way you did.
See the entire thing keeps coming down to you saying how people of a certain alignment are not completely good, because they do X, while whether or not X is justifiable entirely comes down to you definition of good.
That is what I meant at the start, with there only being chaotic good and lawful good, and some middle ground.
Good is what you believe is good.
You could have a character who believes that pinky fingers are a curse upon mortals that draw evil spirits, and goes around cutting people's pinky fingers off and running away, wanting to save them, even if they will never thank him.
"Clearly" he's not a good person, because he harmed them, and went against their will, but he "clearly" is a good person, because only a good person would risk life and limb and being an outcast all their life, only to ensure the safety of complete strangers. After all, from his point of view, it is a fact that those with pinky fingers are in danger. It would be evil not to care, and neutral not to help, but no one will listen.
Same way the paladin. From his point of view, going the "right way" about things is just as important (sometimes more important, see Cuthbert's paladins) as what you're going about. From their point of view, it is despicable to steal that horse, and you can't be good if you do it.
That is the point of the alignment system. You can't argue who is right. No one is. That is why you can play a role.
>>44890651
As for the "neutral doesn't make sense".
A lawful person follows the law because he believes in it.
A neutral person follows it, because of coincidence, convenience, or fear.
A chaotic person breaks the law, because they have no concept of it, or are seeking too actively undermine it.
A neutral person breaks the law because of coincidence convenience or fear.
A neutral person, is someone who is neutral. Someone who has no real stake in the matter. You wouldn't point to two brothers who generally agree on everything, and call one of them lawful because he never committed a crime in his life, and the other chaotic, because he has kleptomania.
If the first brother simply didn't break the law because he had no reason to, he isn't lawful.
If the second brother only broke the law because he can't help himself, he isn't chaotic.
This is about morality, so once again. It's not about the decision, it's about the reasoning. Neutral is not having strong feelings on the topic.
>>44890901
>Someone who believes in upholding the local laws
they are lawful good.
You said that i was chaotic because i didn't do that. I replied that this makes no sense and i'd rather not have that category.
>you definition of good.
The definition of good is logical and universal, not subjective.
Everyone has a set of circumstances that's "good" for them.
The "most good" is what brings the most "good" circumstances for most people.
If someone places the law above achieving
>the most "good" circumstances for most people.
They are not really very good.
Same if they place personal freedoms over that
>Good is what you believe is good.
nope.
if you are mentally capable you know what is good and what isnt.
>the safety of complete strangers
they aren't actually safe though.
just take a look at the allignment system i made.
you CAN argue that someone doesn't value being good as much as being lawful or chaotic.
>>44891290
>The definition of good is logical and universal, not subjective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
It is only universal, if you have access to all the information in the world.
Do you know who will need that horse? Do you know what for? No? Then how can you claim you're doing good? You're ignoring the possibility that you're going to cause great harm.
It's way too late for this discussion here though.
Regardless, hope you have fun games man, cya.
>>44890982
>coincidence, convenience, fear
is not an alignment.
you can't base a persons alignment on things happening TO them.
> who has no real stake in the matter
But this means that alignments are circumstantial which is moronic.
>brothers example
so what if someone can't help himself
can the paladin help himself thinking that the law must be upheld at all costs? nope
can the evil guy help himself, thinking that what he does should be done? nope
and the fact that someone didn't have any reason to break the law is not an alignment. it's circumstance. an alignment is defining a characteristic of an individual.
>>44891439
>Then how can you claim you're doing good?
because i made the best possible decision with all the information available to me.
If i went back in time to stop hitler i would be good.
>But what if pic related happens.
it wouldn't make me evil
Fun games to you too!
>>44882972
The game I'm currently running has 3 axis.
>Law vs Chaos
>Hubris vs Humility
>Fortune vs Misfortune
Good and evil are not cosmic forces in-universe, though each cosmic axis has one that is commonly misinterpreted as "good" and one that is commonly misinterpreted as "evil." That however is just a result of the dissonance between the cosmic perspective and the mortal perspective.
Also here's the updated chart
>>44891624
This to me seems simply a lot more organic.
People can use laws as a basis for evil doing or good doing, and there are people who care more about the law than about being either of those things, but they too will have a tendency towards one or the other.
Plus people who don't care about doing good or evil or liberty or law are usually out for temselves and thus have a different motivation than others, thus deserving a separate category.
Neutral good and neutral evil would be either be meaningless "chaotic and lawful actions just balance each other out" ranges, or serve as the only option to be actually completely good. This is fixed here too.It does look like a cross between a simon-says game and the universal haz-mat sign. But that is is coincidentally quite appropriate for something that should dictate a characters life and determines how to deal with situations.
>>44885725
It's just in the realm of possibility. But remember just because you theoretically can, doesn't mean you can do it in a way that's not 900 pages long and much ado about buildings.
Although a game set in Anthem's city could be cool. Or "We" but that's harder due to scale.
>>44886979
This one is pretty good.
>>44883906
I think this really captures the essence of what an alignment system should be about. A quick way of sketching out and understanding your character's morality.
Evil Lord is noble, cynical, and selfish. He believes the world is basically cruel and everyone must fend for themselves, but he won't lower himself with petty grudges or underhanded tricks.
Combat Medic is pragmatic, cynical, and selfless. He's seen a lot of carnage in his life and he doesn't think it's ever going to get better, but he's going to do whatever it takes to just save one. more. life.
Grand Inquisitor is noble, idealistic, and selfish. He is obsessed with the calling of his faith and his church, and works ceaselessly to expunge its enemies, even if deep down, he's really just a sadist.
I like this system a lot. Lot of mechanical storytelling potential.
