Quote from: Azraele;1125226This is a good point: as far as I can tell, the original impetus for Alignment as a mechanically-supported rule was so that Gygax could punish people for playing against archetype.

Naw. Originally it was just a way of telling the shirts from the skins in Chainmail Fantasy.

Quote from: Azraele;1125226Is ANY alignment system more sensible, workable, than the nonsense I posted above?

Fantasy Craft. Alignments are an optional feature that falls under Interests(which also include languages and areas of study). If you play in a setting where things like good and evil are fundamental forces(like Forgotten Realms with its positive and negative energy planes, frex), you could pick D&D style alignments. But in general, alignment, if it's even important enough to the character to bother with, will be more specific than that. Like a specific religion, code of conduct, something like that. But again, optional at multiple levels.

Quote from: Azraele;1125226This is a good point: as far as I can tell, the original impetus for Alignment as a mechanically-supported rule was so that Gygax could punish people for playing against archetype. It was essentially a codifying of behavioral expectations, but messier than later jabs at the same thing (actually, I feel like the insanity mechanics in CoC were much cleaner in this regard, although they weren't quite the same).

Is ANY alignment system more sensible, workable, than the nonsense I posted above?

Really, that nightmare polyhedron up there isn't any less intuitive than whatever the fuck "Chaotic Neutral" is meant to imply. Or "Neutral Evil"
(Man, game designers get too caught up in symmetry and create some stupid shit as a result...)

I've been using Law-Neutral-Chaos, but even that doesn't really need "Neutral" now, does it? It's basically white hats and black hats, but even that isn't defined mechanically; it's more something implied by the religions and cults and codes of chivalry that the setting has, whatever I make them. That organic approach serves the same function; I really only need alignment for magic weapons, when that's appropriate. And those weapons are so rare that I could probably do away with alignment entirely and just have each one have it's own code and expectations, which strikes me as more flavorful and interesting.

Damn, I think alignment just sucks. Unexpected realization there.

I hate Palladium game rules, but one of the things that I think works better than the D&D alignment system is the Palladium alignment system. It just seems to make more sense.

Here are the alignments described in the Palladium rules system. I found them to be both more interestingly described, and more player-friendly when they are being applied.


Principled (Good)
Principled characters are, generally, the strong, moral character.
(They rarely lie, respect the law, try to be ALWAYS honest, etc.. A true lawful by-the-book good)

Scrupulous (Good)
Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else, and
despise those who would deprive others of them. This type of hero is
typically portrayed in many Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson films;
the person who is forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law, and
the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive men,
but are men driven to right injustice. I must point out that these characters
will always attempt to work with or within the law whenever possible.
Many cyber-knights are scrupulous.


Unprincipled (Selfish)
This, basically, good person tends to be selfish, greedy, and holds
his/her personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else.
He/she dislikes confining laws, self-discipline and distrusts authority.
This is the Han Solo, Star Wars, character. The guy who is always
looking for the best deal, associates with good and evil characters, is
continually tempted to lie and cheat, and hates himself for being loyal
and helping others.

Anarchist (Selfish)
This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is
the insurgent, con-man, gambler and high roller; the uncommitted
freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification. This character
will, at least, consider doing anything if the price is right. These people
are intrigued by power, glory and wealth. Life has meaning, but his
has the greatest meaning. Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom
and were meant to be broken. An anarchist aligned person is always
looking for the best deal, and will work with good, selfish or evil to
get it; as long as he comes out of the situation on top. The anarchist
is continually teetering between good and evil, rebelling, and bending
the law to fit his needs. Often mercenaries fall into this category

Miscreant (Evil)
This self-serving, unscrupulous character is out only for himself.
Power, glory, wealth, position, and anything that will make his life
more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the
middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will
lie, cheat and kill anyone to attain his personal goals.

Aberrant (Evil)
The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves." is false when
dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to
attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant
person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of
ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects
loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a
swift, merciful death. An aberrant person will always keep his word
of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live
by them, whether anyone else likes it or not.


Diabolic (Evil)
This is the category where the megalomaniacs, violent, and most
despicable characters fall. This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no
one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way.
Aberrant aligned characters find these dishonorable people just as revolting
as a good aligned character.


When you think about it, these alignment allow for much less bi-dimensional characters than in D&D.

Quote from: jeff37923;1125235I hate Palladium game rules, but one of the things that I think works better than the D&D alignment system is the Palladium alignment system. It just seems to make more sense.

I always found Palladium alignment to be too proscribed, DnD alignment was much better.

I think there are four alignments in practice: Lawful Preachy, Chaotic Fuckwit, Evil Bastard and Neutral Greedy. Every behaviour I've ever seen in game was the result of one of these.

Quote from: Azraele;1125226Damn, I think alignment just sucks.

Count me in this camp as well. Regardless of original intention, as you say the only purpose served by an alignment mechanic is to enforce archetype (note, I consider "factions" to be an entirely different thing from "alignment"). For me, that's no different from railroading the narrative to enforce story. Just as I prefer the story to emerge from the players' actions, so I prefer a character's moral and ethical qualities to be defined by what the character does. I find the characters' morality so much more interesting this way.

Like Tarot, Meyers-Briggs, et al, the alignment chart has always been a fun spectrum upon which to interpret behavior. But it falls entirely flat for me when used as a rule for behavioral expectations.