I found this while browsing the interwebs. Thought you guys might like.
Law/Chaos axis
Lawful = "I do what I must do..."
Neutral = "I do what I do..."
Chaotic = "I do what I want to do..."
Good/Evil axis
Good = "...for the benefit of others."
Neutral = "...regardless of who benefits."
Evil = "...for my own benefit."
Combine and you get:
CN = "I do what I want to do regardless of who benefits."
LG = "I do what I must do for the benefit of others."
NE = "I do what I do for my own benefit."
etc.
Love it! Add it to the Alignment section in Players Info or where ever that section is in the forums.
So then Batman is LG ?
Yep.
What is Lawful Neutral then?
Lawful = "I do what I must do..."
Neutral = "...regardless of who benefits."
?
A lawful neutral judge who convicts an adventurer of murder for having slain an assassin without proof is doing what he must do, regardless of who benefits or is punished.
I like this.
LG: I do what I must for the Benefit of Others
LN: I do what I must regardless of who benefits
LE: I do what I must for my own benefit
NG: I do what I do for the benefit of others
NN: I do what I do regardless of who benefits
NE: I do what I do for my own benefit
CG: I do what I want for the benefit of others
CN: I do what I want regardless of who benefits
CE: I do what I want for my own benefit
Meh. I am not entirely happy with it, it is a little bit too simplistic. It assumes that selfish = evil and selfless = not evil. It is entirely possible for a selfless person to do great evil and to be evil.
But as a rough guideline, it isn't too bad.
Awesome
I always thought alignment was a terrible, misunderstood, and ultimately arbitrary mechanic of D&D and while this "system" is convenient for identifying motivations, I do feel it's a bit simplistic and sort of outlines some of the faults of the mechanic itself.
This chart is pretty good, though of course there are exemptions, like the bad guys who vehemently believe that they serve the greater good and what's in the best interest of the whole.
It is good as far as shorthand goes; just keep TOH's caveat in mind. Evil can be motivated by earnest pursuit of the greater Good.
And some types of magic are inherently Evil, just due to the cosmic alignment rules of the Forgotten Realms. (So a Good PC who uses such magic in pursuit of Good, would actually be Neutral at best)
Quote from: The Old Hack;317352Meh. I am not entirely happy with it, it is a little bit too simplistic. It assumes that selfish = evil and selfless = not evil. It is entirely possible for a selfless person to do great evil and to be evil.
But as a rough guideline, it isn't too bad.
The thing about alignment is, it doesn't take intentions into account. By RAW, an evil action for good intent remains an evil action, no matter what. It might be MITIGATED, but it's still evil.
That's what makes it so bad.
It's also missing an alignment
I do what I must, Because I can = Apeture Science
Quote from: Gotham;317432It's also missing an alignment
I do what I must, Because I can = Apeture Science
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
Or the Categorical Imperative: I do what I must, because universal morality requires it.
>.>
(I probably expressed that one wrong or too crudely. Ah well.)
What about the "I do what I do, but I don't know why."?
Also Gangster Neutral: "I do what I want... Haters gon' hate."
Quote from: The Old Hack;317352Meh. I am not entirely happy with it, it is a little bit too simplistic. It assumes that selfish = evil and selfless = not evil. It is entirely possible for a selfless person to do great evil and to be evil.
But as a rough guideline, it isn't too bad.
This summary isn't inaccurate at all. It's just that the alignment system is too simplistic.
I wouldn't worry about how accurate this chart is and isn't. Alignment is best left to an afterthought. After I come up with my characters concept I'll read it and stamp it with the alignment I feel is closest to his motivations. If I get it wrong I don't really worry about it because it can easily be shifted based on actions in game without even having to ask for it.
Quote from: HungeringShadows;317513I wouldn't worry about how accurate this chart is and isn't. Alignment is best left to an afterthought. After I come up with my characters concept I'll read it and stamp it with the alignment I feel is closest to his motivations. If I get it wrong I don't really worry about it because it can easily be shifted based on actions in game without even having to ask for it.
This is precisely how alignment should be regarded. Your PCs actions define their alignment, their alignment doesn't decide their actions. If you find yourself thinking "I'm lawful good, how should I react to this?" you're doing it wrong, frankly.
The consideration should always be about your character's personality, motivations and beliefs, with no regard to those two silly letters on your character sheet. It's a sure way to be two-dimensional and bland.
Quote from: Guttersnipe;317515The consideration should always be about your character's personality, motivations and beliefs, with no regard to those two silly letters on your character sheet. It's a sure way to be two-dimensional and bland.
I would agree, except... in certain cases, alignment changes can be mechanically crippling. And yes, 'mechanically crippling' is meta but it can be ICly translated into, "My God will hit me with a big hammer if I screw this up." Clerics have to be a bit careful. Paladins are darn near tightrope walking at times. Falling from your patron's good graces is never fun and to be frank, only exceptionally good roleplayers take it in stride and forge on when it happens. (Mind you, I have
enormous respect for those who do take it in stride and attempt the difficult climb back to grace, succeed or not.)
~tOH.