Ok, in 4e we have what again? Good-evil-lawful-neutral-chaotic? is that right?

Anyways, aside from that mess, in the original D&D's we always had the dual-axis of Good-neutral-Evil/Law-neutral-Chaos (though in some versions of the original D&D there was only one of the two present).

What other viable alignment spectrums could you use for good old-fashioned fantasy?

RPGPundit

I have used, even in D&D, alignments such as: communist, anarchist, monarchist, libertarian, capitalist, and so on.

"My cleric casts protection for atheists!"

Quote from: RPGPundit;304831Ok, in 4e we have what again? Good-evil-lawful-neutral-chaotic? is that right?

Anyways, aside from that mess, in the original D&D's we always had the dual-axis of Good-neutral-Evil/Law-neutral-Chaos (though in some versions of the original D&D there was only one of the two present).

What other viable alignment spectrums could you use for good old-fashioned fantasy?

RPGPundit

I used a Faction system that seems to work. Just take the major social, political, and religous groups and measure how the PC relations are with them.

For example in one region the different groups are Set, Mantriv, and Mitra. Set and Mitra are polar opposites in the region and Mantriv (a war/sky god) is a third major force that came in on a wave of barbarian invasion that disrupted the preexisting cultures based on Mitra and Set. Finally Demons and their cults are opposed by all three.

The original Law-Neutral-Chaos axis had it origins in the wargames that were part of Blackmoor. The players were Law and their enemies Chaos. Neutral were the guys they have to convince to join.

This was carried over to OD&D and proved unsatisfactory describing people's motivations. Good vs evil being the major omission. So hence a second axis was born.

The problem with a faction system is moral relativism. It easy to fall into even if it is not your intent. It is also more messy because you don't get the nice graph only varying levels of relationships between broad groups.

In my campaign I handle the idea of pure evil by having demons are the enemies of creation and all the gods (even the "evil" ones) oppose them.

My main advice to those unhappy with the two axis D&D alignment system and still want to have black & white view points is to look at what you actually do with your setting. Who are really the good guys and who are the bad guys. Develop the new axises from that and adjust your spells accordingly. So Protection from Evil may become Protection from Setites, or Protection from Chaos, etc, etc.

Straight from the 4E PHB:

✦ Good: Freedom and kindness.
✦ Lawful Good: Civilization and order.
✦ Evil: Tyranny and hatred.
✦ Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction.
✦ Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.

Personally, I'd rather have the old axis system.  I always thought that one worked the best, regardless of what you call each axis.  It can be factions, it can be good/evil, but it works.  It's easy to keep a little chart behind the screen and move players around as their relationship to a faction changes, or as their alignment shifts.

Quote from: estar;304862My main advice to those unhappy with the two axis D&D alignment system and still want to have black & white view points is to look at what you actually do with your setting. Who are really the good guys and who are the bad guys. Develop the new axises from that and adjust your spells accordingly. So Protection from Evil may become Protection from Setites, or Protection from Chaos, etc, etc.

This is good advice.

I kind of like the good/evil, law/chaos axes, but interpret law/chaos rather as social/solitary; focusing on the good of the group vs. that of the individual.

Palladium had I think, Principled, Unprincipled, Scrupulous, Aberrant, Miscreant, Anarchist, and Diabolic.

I liked Recon, though, which had:- Opportunist (Righteous, Karmic, and Idealist), Idealist (Pacifist) and Malignant (Psychotic).

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Regards,
David R

Dragon magazine #101, pg 18 has an article in regards to that, called 'For King and Country'. Sort of a replacement for alignment.

Quote from: Article introAlignment has always been important in the making and playing of an AD&D® game character. Supposedly, by electing to be lawful good, chaotic neutral, or whatever, a character chooses a broad set of morals which will guide his behavior in the game. Unfortunately, it is not nearly so simple. It has become obvious in the recent storm of letters to the Forum that alignment is no longer serving its primary purposes, those being to rationalize each individual's behavior and to prevent players from breaking character in order to unfairly exploit game situations. Instead of answering moral dilemmas, alignment is creating them.

In the game I'm working there is no setting, but a kind of check list for making fantasy settings.

One step is making up two opposing Philosophies and with the Taint, a BAD thing no normal person would do (regardless of Philosophy). Players have come up with the following:


In a game featuring orcs whose home country was attacked by humans:

Settled vs. Nomadic

Taint: Praying to the Gods. (Showing reverence to supernal beings was the feature of the those bloody humans.)



In a vanilla fantasy world where play centers on a dwarven city:

Sunlanders vs. Underworlders (That is people living above ground vs. those living below ground. The sunny guys are more idealistic, the underworld guys more pragmatic. Dwarves are, of course, equally adapted to both worlds. So many dwarves are neutral.)

Taint: Praying to the OLD gods. (Who were defeated by the younger ones.)



In a Sci-Fi / Fairytale mash-up where human starships had crash landed on a world inhabited by elves:

Human vs. Elvish (Dominating nature, being rash and bold vs. a more holistic and painstakingly slow way of doing things)

Taint: Dealing with the Dark Ones or using their Arts. (The Dark Ones were elves who where exiled from the four elemental courts and got an upper hand after the humans had arrived.)



In a world of tropical islands:
Mysticism vs. Technology

Taint: Messing with the ruling dynasty. (The rightful high king was considered important for the survival of the people and the world. So even progressive characters would not mess with the monarchy.)



In a low-fantasy world:
Faith vs. Science

Taint: Sorcery and dealing with the Fey. (It was kind of interesting because both scientists and faithful had some tricks that could have been mistaken for sorcery.)



In an upcoming game featuring an oriental city in style of 1001 nights:

Courtly vs. Street (Funny thing is that the current rulers are totally Street and have ousted the old elites. So people of both philosophies will likely be found outside their natural habitats.)

Taint: Betrayal. (Meaning that one sends a warning before opening hostilities.)



Two groups have played Nochnoi Dozor with the system. Naturally, they took Light vs. Darkness as the philosophies.

Another group was planning a sword & sorcery game with humans and dragons as the two sentient species and Human vs. Draconic as the philosophies. Sadly they never played.

I've adopted Magic: the Gathering's color wheel as an alignment system, even for D&D and such (having dropped the native alignment system entirely).

It looks pretty solid on paper, but I've yet to try it out in an actual game.

Realist <----> Absurdist

Constructivist
^
|
|
|
V
Nihilist

In the middle --> True Pedestrian

!i!

Empire of the Petal Throne's two sets of opposed deities were aligned along a division between those supporting change & those supporting stability. Particularly for a setting assuming a long history this approach seems very fitting.

Oh, and don't forget Nobilis. The codes were probably the first Alignment system that actually worked. Because instead of treating adhering to your code as a must, they made it a want.

The major codes are:

Heaven
Hell
Light
Dark
Wild
Serpent

Quote from: 1of3;305142Oh, and don't forget Nobilis.

However, the Codes don't really form a spectrum as they don't necessarily relate to each other in any way, and even the ethics of those universal factions which at first glance might seem hopelessly at war (Heaven versus Hell, the Light versus the Dark) aren't diametrically opposed as such.

To use an old example, since the Lords of the Light are concerned with protecting the human species as a whole even if it means sacrificing any number of individuals, while the Magisters of the Dark seek to validate their existence by persuading humanity to destroy itself, the two groups could happily collaborate in, say, hunting down a mass murderer: the Light because the death of that one killer is an acceptable loss when weighed against the damage he has caused, the Dark because he's been taking away the victims' right to choose to end their own lives. In the same vein, the principles that the angels and the devils venerate aren't Good and Evil, respectively, but rather Beauty and Corruption. Heaven might intervene to save that particular murderer because of his exceptional artistic talent, while Hell could send a demonic assassin after him because by killing people he's also put an end to their suffering.

The Codes are a matter of personal conviction, not objective morality. If a character believes that any act of violence committed in the name of his religious faith is only right and proper, why, he'll grow stronger by remaining true to those ideals, and weaken from doubt and uncertainty if he turns away from the same. And if another in turn believes that reason is the only tolerable guideline for anyone and that superstition should be stamped out wherever it's found, then his strength will rise and fall according to his adherence to those ideals. There are no great cosmic value judgments on either of those stances. It is, effectively, an amoral setting.

Quote from: 1of3;305077In an upcoming game featuring an oriental city in style of 1001 nights:

Courtly vs. Street (Funny thing is that the current rulers are totally Street and have ousted the old elites. So people of both philosophies will likely be found outside their natural habitats.)

Which is actual history, by the way. The "barbaric" Mameluks have created several independent and short-lived states in the "courtly" Caliphate of the 12th century, and the Zengi dynasty has been one of them... (Well, at least as far as I can claim to be historically accurate and thorough after only having my all-purpose history encyclopaedia to cover that area during that period. It should do the trick for a more pulp-y and swashbuckling-y one-shot, though, especially as no one at the table has really a clue about the epoch.)