|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|