[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 149 KB, 3064x3064, BRACI GRID.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
26892265 No.26892265 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

In this article, The Bearded One strives to make sense and clear distinctions between the various D&D alignments. Feedback encouraged, Outrage and Arguments expected. Still, thought I'd share and see what you masters of the game thought.


>> No.26892277

Why are you posting your blog

>> No.26892335
File: 1.45 MB, 350x302, bubblesfucky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.26892341

Fuck you and your blog.

>> No.26892372

>Original Concept Do not steal

>> No.26892378 [DELETED] 

Fuck off and die.

>> No.26892484

>/tg/ doesn't get shit done

>> No.26892498
File: 27 KB, 200x146, laughing 2d whores 2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.26892511


Mocking aspie fucks is getting shit done.

>> No.26892564

It is not my blog. It is the website I work for.
I use 9 point alignment because it is intended for compatibility with D&D and Pathfinder. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel.
Couldn't care less if people steal it or not. It's OGL. Doesn't stop me from putting a copyright notice on it.
There's the hate I was expecting.

>> No.26892644

Anon, Anon, Anon...
We don't discuss alignments because we want them to change. We discuss it, because we value all the raeg.

>> No.26892832

You know what the sole redeeming value of the standard alignment system was?
You could understand what each alignment was just by reading it.
You know what really kills your alignment system in the womb is?
You can't understand what the fuck makes any of them different from one another and they all sound completely arbitrary. They're all wordy and they'd be a complete nightmare to keep track of.

And you'd still have the same problem of drastically oversimplifying the human condition, and even if you had a perfect adoption rate where everyone completely understood exactly what you meant by each alignment (a feat that the current system is incapable of I might add), you'd still get threads of people arguing that one character is this because they did this thing one time and another person arguing that the first person is an idiot and he's really this other alignment because of other reasons.

So there's your constructive criticism. In short: >>26892378

>> No.26892848

>I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel.
>actual definition: to waste a great deal of time or effort in creating something that already exists.


>> No.26892860

This seems needlessly huge and complicated.

>> No.26892908

> Responsible is a path of its own.
Great thinking there OP.

>> No.26892921

Alignment Pyramid!

>> No.26892932

What killed the original system is that no one ever could actually figure out what any of the terms meant and everyone was constantly arguing if this or that act was evil or not.

At least with the OP's system you never have to worry about someone playing an Evil PC because there is no evil. There's just (let me check) Authoritarianism? Yeah, it's a mouthful. Evil is more pithy I guess. But no one ever says "Hey! I'm evil!"

>> No.26892936

if it was simple fix, someone would have fixed it long ago.

>> No.26892940

I have literally no idea what the fuck I'm seeing here.

>> No.26892943

>no one ever
That's far fetched assumption, Anon.
Plenty of people were happily playing D&D since the dawn of RPGs and had no problems with alignments whatsoever.

>> No.26892948

They are supposed to make you feel good & shit...

>> No.26892956

Thanks (assuming it wasn't sarcasm).
If it was sarcasm, I guess I missed it.

>> No.26892962

That's kinda what the article the OP linked to explains.

>> No.26892975

yeah, most of us just threw out the stupid alignment system because fuck they make no sense.

>> No.26892978

I don't remember needing supplemental material to understand what, say, chaotic evil means.

>> No.26892982

Yeah, it was sarcasm.

You literally suggest, that everyone else can't be responsible. Hint: responsibility isn't part of alignment. I saw "chaotical" people that didn't know where they are half of time, still being responsible for their dogs, or cars.

>> No.26892990

>most of us
That's far fetched assumption too, Anon.
-> Plenty <- of people treated and still treat alignment system as "rule of this system" and have no problem following it.

>> No.26892991

While one can always appreciate putting an effort [into something], this is a case of polishing a turd. Alignments cannot be salvaged.

>> No.26892992


It is sarcasm. It translates to in-game douchehattery being enabled across the board, since anyone not having "responsible" on their character sheet can get away with chaotic stupid idiocy by saying "hey, I'm just roleplaying my alignment".

>> No.26893011

No they can't. The OP thought of that, since the opposite of being a responsible person is being a person who follows orders.

>> No.26893018


>> No.26893024

>the opposite of being a responsible person is being a person who follows orders.
Another bright idea!
In real world, soldiers have responsibility to follow orders, to care bout their weapon etc. But judging by that alignment system - they can't do that, because either they follow orders,or are responsible.

It's shit.

>> No.26893038

soldiers have obedience and an honor code. They don't have responsibility, which is the taking of personal initiative, they serve and obey.

>> No.26893050

Actually, I'd imagine that most soldiers, like the article says, fall into the middle ground. They have a mixture of individualism and selflessness and groupthink and obedience.
Only extreme individuals, according to the article, actually have alignments... like PCs.

captcha: your duchy

>> No.26893055

That's entirely subjective point of view.
Still, it's irrelevant.

Any alignment system that is so intuitive, that it requires additional explanations isn't worth attention.

>> No.26893067

I do like that part, the part that says that most people are just in the center of the chart, the outer grey or the light colored bits. They aren't really dedicated to anything. D&D made True Neutral fucking rare, but most people are pretty much in that area. it should have been much bigger on their chart.

>> No.26893071

I think you mean unintuitive... and they all have explanations, except the humor ones.

>> No.26893120

It's the Military Ideal, not the actual mindset of soldiers. The Military wants unquestioning obedience to the law, to the state, to the code. They don't want you to be responsible because you think it's a good idea, they want you to do responsible things because they tell you to, because the code tells you to, because it serves the state. A Collective Authoritarian Ideal says You are Cells. It is your Duty to do this. You must do this because if you don't you will die, your friends will die, your nation will die.

And yes, most people are vague, not at extremes. The Fanatics and Enlightened may take up the outer, larger section of the Grid, but they actually account for less than 10% of the total population. They just tend to be the ones who lead the rest.

As for needing explanation, all alignment systems give explanations and examples. And yes, they're all simplifications of the human condition. But the problem with defining things in terms of Good and Evil is human beings never own up to being Evil and Chaos is essentially presented as Evil version 2 in D&D's rules.

Most people should be Neutral or Moderates... most PCs should be Fanatics and Enlightened.

I wonder how many people followed the link and read the article before decrying the overly complex system.

>> No.26893209
File: 147 KB, 3064x3064, BRACI GRID v2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

an updated version that might be easier to read for the two sides.

>> No.26893249

Aside from the inclusion of gradients, I'm not really seeing much different from the default alignment system.

>> No.26893303

I think that was the point, The OP was trying to create a less term biased version of the default. Eliminate terms like Good/Evil/Law/Chaos because they're all but impossible to define without recourse to christian dogma and the works of HPL.

There's also a shift to a more socio-political slant and a focus more on the middle. The gradients are nice because it defines excesses, especially since the middle ground is fanatical and the OP clearly states they tend to break from their own professed ideals due to intolerance.

>> No.26893331

The gradients are a neat touch, and I always appreciate the idea of disentangling the alignment terms from the loaded terms they currently use, but such projects always strike me as vanity projects. Most games get on fine with the alignment system as is, so long as you can resist obsessing over the terms, you'll be fine.

>> No.26893384

I write a weekly article about about gaming and I've been involved in about 50 debates about alignment in the pathfinder discussion group I'm a part of over the last three months. I couldn't finish Saints Row 2 for my article this week because 40 hours in it just stopped working, so while I wait on customer service, I tossed the notes I'd been working on together and created this. I don't use an Alignment system myself except for planar beings and supernatural creatures like dragons and unicorns and vampires. So the only PCs in my games that have alignments are priests and paladins (no, not monks). Their code of conduct is based upon whatever god they serve and I'm very strict about following those rules, usually about 12 for each god.

That said, I might start using this system, after I run it past my group. I only invented it on monday.

>> No.26893449

It's not a terrible system, and it is more logical the the basic system. I just don't think it's necessary since every group just uses their own definition of alignment.

>> No.26894132

They did. They stopped using alignment at all.

>> No.26894163

not an optimal solution, but simpler than trying to figure out the difference between Chaos and Evil. I think the original D&D had Chaos as a Substitute for Evil and AD&D actually had the split between Chaos and Evil and Law and Good. THat's why 4e went back to that model and why AD&D never could quite clearly define the differences.

What I like about this new thing is that it actually has 9 playable alignments for PCs.

>> No.26894274

I approve Bearded One. If I had to actually DM for Pathfinder in a scenario that required alignments for... (balance???) then I would insist on using this over the core alignment system.

That said, there is one important change i would make. The opposite of "Responsible" is "Irresponsible". It implies authoritarianism is irresponsible by default. This will cause the sort of arguments you wish to solve.

Presumably you justify the wording in your link. But it doesn't much matter. You can choose a better label for whatever you think the opposite of Authoritarian is.

>> No.26894310

I suppose I should have, but I chose Responsible to mean possessing a sense of responsibility for others, while Authoritarian is a sense of responsibility to others. I considered Dutiful and Responsible but it didn't quite work. I will give it some consideration, Anon, thank you for the feedback.

>> No.26894331
File: 34 KB, 510x546, 1371651882184.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Copyright PJ Grant
The fuck is going on here? Get off my morning /tg/

>> No.26894345

I chose Responsible based upon this definition
Responsibility: the ability or authority to act or decide on one's own, without supervision
while Authoritarian I based upon this definition: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority

However, Irresponsible is merely the lack of Responsibility, not the opposite, although that is a whole other philosophical debate.

>> No.26894357


What's the difference between Objectively Balanced and Absolutely Balanced?

>> No.26894386

>Collectivism on the Left
>implying Good
>Individualism on the Right
>implying Bad
>carbon copy of political compass
No sir, I don't like it.

>> No.26894402

Radicalism and extremism don't necessarily equate with "enlightened"

>> No.26894418

You're equivocating terms there. If "Responsible" is the diametric opposite of Authoritarian, then the lack of responsibility is Authoritarian.

This is a peculiar and unwanted result. But it is always true that putting "not" in front of a word results in it's opposite. "Not Responsible" is the diametric opposite of Responsible in all cases. And irresponsible means "not responsible" to all English speakers without idiosyncratic jargon. This can't be ignored, since you're enterprise is to clarify jargon.

I have further feedback to follow shortly now that I've read your article.

>> No.26894426

Objectively Balanced can see the validity of each side's arguments and apply each as need for the situation.
Absolutely Balanced refuse to take sides, being completely disinterested in the debate.

>> No.26894435

You know what, fuck this thread.

Its a pointless waste of time and I cannot spare the bile and hatred I need to derail other, more important aspies.

>> No.26894445

Radicalism and extremism are forms of Fanaticism. Enlightened individuals have moved passed Fanaticism. Fanatics / Radicals / Extremists lack absolute conviction in their own belief stucture and thus become angry when it is challenged. The Enlightened know their way is best and no longer have a need to prove it.

>> No.26894469

I miss Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.

Everything made more sense.

>> No.26894472

Considering that it's based on the old grid which placed good at the top and bad at the bottom, I'm not implying that Collectivism or Individualism are in any way good or bad. they both have their place and they can both be used for good or ill. Responsible Collectivism and Responsible Individualism are both decent "Good" outlooks.

>> No.26894481

True, Good point. My bad.

>> No.26894511

It seems very convoluted and not particularly useful to anyone.

What the fuck is it even FOR?

>> No.26894526

Hardly an Improvement over the traditional alignement. Authority is in itself neither good nor evil, but just a means to an end. If the pope says that people should give money to the victims of, let´s say, an earthquake, he´s using his authority for a purpose that no one would call evil.

The real problem with alignements is moral relativism. What I perceive as "good" will not necessarily be seen as "good" by everyone. The second problem is that laws are sometimes downright evil, and being both lawful and good can be impossible.

>> No.26894531

Largely an exercise in clarification. It's for fun, like all other aspects of roleplaying.

>> No.26894572

I'll give you points for trying, but this just complicates things further to a point of not wanting to use it.

By the way, you fucked up right from the get-go by linking WotNO and claiming you work there.

>> No.26894584

The other problem I have here is that I still can't tell the difference between AI and BA.

Here's a bit of advice I give my players. Chaotic Evil, done properly, obeys the law 90% of the time. In general all evil characters should only be evil opportunistically. Too often chaos is equated with "no self control" and this leads to getting murdered by the town guard in half an hour (and usually an upset player). Lack of self control is a mark of low wisdom, not alignment. Even unwise lawful evil characters will do retarded things like abuse their power unwisely and unnecessarily in ways that put them at risk. Unwise lawful evil characters think themselves protected lawfully, and from lawful entities, they are protected. But any chaotic entity will walk up and assassinate their crazy corrupt ass someday. Machiavelli says this in more eloquent prose in "The Prince".

Real life psychopaths could easily fall into this trap. I think a sociopath is more chaotic by nature- they see through the social boundaries and realize people can break through the rules. Unwise lawful people forget people can break the rules. Psychopaths simply can't feel empathy for others- but they're usually very good about hiding this because their own self interest dictates they don't like how they're treated when people find out they're psychopaths.

I suppose sociopathy in general tracks Chaos pretty well in the traditional sense. But I like where you're going with the individualist bent, since you can't build a cosmology on a rare psychological disorder.

>> No.26894593
File: 403 KB, 225x118, 1377577136582.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>"So, Jerry, what's a Enlightened Balanced Collectivist?"
>"A clarification."
*laugh track*

>> No.26894612

That is, largely, my point. I've tried to take morality and it's relativism out of the equation. I've attempted to replace "Evil" (A Moral statement no body claims) with "Authoritarian" a sociopolitical ideal that many people espouse but is generally seen as less "Good" than more democratic forms of social structure. Lawful Evil was a hard Alignment to play, but Collectivist Authoritarian Fanatic? Can you say Commisar, Drill Sargent, or Gestapo?"

>> No.26894619
File: 10 KB, 300x100, aspie-post-of-the-year.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's shitposting of an incredible purity. It's close to 200 proof shitposting, distilled from thousands of lesser shitposts.

You captured the essence of shitposting.

>> No.26894640

>I've tried to take morality and it's relativism out of the equation.
Moldvay beat you to the punch, brah. And his system was actually useable.

>> No.26894704

The AI claims all authority comes from individual might, either his own or his lords. Typical Barbarian culture, challenge the strong, claim the right of Authority for yourself. or for the extreme loner (i.e. psychopath) "Mine is the only law".

The BA is an opportunist. They don't feel comfortable on their own or merely relying on rule of the strong, but neither do they meekly toe the line to the collective's laws. They exist in the grey world between civilization and barbarism, like the Mafia does. They have their own code of doing things and hide in the larger society, pretending to be proles.

>> No.26894708

If you see authoritan styles of governement as inherently less good than others, you are guilty of - wait for it - moral relativism. Asian societies will (of course, in general terms) prefer a stable, authoritan society where everyone has their accepted place to a society that is more open to individual wishes and consequently less stable. You may or may not agree, but that shows that authority - responsibility are just as subjective as good - evil.

>> No.26894736

I didn't claim otherwise. I do think my system is usable. It has rough spots too, but I think it's pretty lucid for something less than a week old. I consider this peer review and am taking nothing personal in it. You are the first group I've shown it to. I figured I'd go to the harshest critics known to man and test it in that fire, see if anything worthwhile came out of it.

>> No.26894764

So here's the meat of it- what does an enlightened authoritarian individualist look like?

If I were to use this, I would play it with a straight face, and there would be an entire nation that believes this. If I can't do that- if only sociopaths and criminals qualify- then the system is implausible.

Same with Enlightened Balanced Authoritarian. Which, by the way, does not intuitively translate to "criminal" at all to me. It seems kind of straightforward Nazi really. National Socialist Republic much? We hate communism but we aren't exactly about the rights of the individual either? Yeah. I can see that. Play it with a straight face even. It's a hard sell, but that makes it a fun role-playing challenge.

Now what would a legitimate authoritarian individualist look like as a political party...?

I'm really having trouble picturing this. Someone who believes the exercise of central authority is necessary for society, and the protection of the individual.

So somebody who thinks democracy leads to mob rule, and strongly values the rights of the individual over the collective.

Ok, logically consistent. John Adams was all about that. Hobbes made some arguments to this effect as well.

Still, in practice "serving the individual" is difficult when most people believe "being told what to do by an outside authority" is not in their own interest. I suppose this would work better if you had an attitude of "people have no idea what's really best for them and their own opinions on what they want should be ignored".

This pretty much fucks up the entire economy. Benevolent dictatorship perhaps? Oligarchy?

>> No.26894795

actually, most asian societies are collectivist. Not all are Authoritarian. Japan is largely Responsible as is Mongolia and Tibet. From what I understand, Vietnam is pretty middle of the road. Yes, China is absolutely a Totalitarian Collectivism. But blind obedience is always going to be less optimum than simply trying to care for others. The ability to sacrifice yourself rather than demanding others sacrifice themselves for the "Good" of society is pretty much the definition of "Goodness" over "Evil"

>> No.26894859

First off, an entire nation of Enlightened individuals of any stripe is going to be unplayable. they account for less than 1 percent of the population. As I said, something like 90% of the population lies in the inner four rings, leaving 9% in the fanatic ring and 1% in the enlightened ring. An Athoritarian Individualist would look like a brutal Barbarian tribe, probably orks or gnolls. They'd follow their leader as long as he was strong and brought them victory. When he failed, they'd kill him, squabble over leadership, then regroup and try again. There are many tribes in human history that have been this way, and hundreds more in fiction that have gone even farther.

Yes, I can see Nazi's as Balanced Authoritarians.

>> No.26894871

>Yes, China is absolutely a Totalitarian Collectivism.
Yeah, no. I went there a month ago, some dregs of totalitarian collectivism still remain but it's far more individualist now, especially when it comes to economics.

>> No.26894882

Couple of Questions:

A military commander gives an order to a squad that will likely result in most members of that squad getting killed, wounded or captured. However, while that squad is fighting, the rest of the army can withdraw. Demanding sacrifice of others = evil, according to what you just wrote. True in every case, or can the end justify the means?

An even more drastic example: Did Churchill and Roosevelt have the right to ask their countrymen to fight and die so Germany could be stopped? (I´m german, btw).

>> No.26894897

And thank you for the analysis. This is why I came to you guys. When TG isn't being... well, 4chan, it's full of some of the most well read and brutally honest game-maniacs out there.

>> No.26894905

How about: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic

>> No.26894910

fair enough. My studies of China mostly date back to when I was getting my degree in the mid 90s. I had no idea they'd changed so much.

>> No.26894931

>China is absolutely a Totalitarian Collectivism
Your ignorance is laid bare in this thread.

>> No.26894932

The ends can justify the means, but given the same circumstances, which would be better, asking for volunteers and trusting that your men will do the "right" thing or demanding they do so because you known better?

as you say, "asked"

>> No.26894952

As I admitted one line above you, I last studied China in the 90s. And Communist China has brutally oppressed it's people for most of it's history. I had no idea they had changed, but no one can know everything.

>> No.26894983

Unless that civilization were immortal elves.

But that's besides the point. I didn't mean to imply everyone would be enlightened. Only that entire civilizations would organize themselves around constitutions written by such enlightened founders.

I'm not really buying the barbarian argument. I think you might be getting your barbarian history from the somewhat biased Romans. And your native American history from the cowboys. And your African history from Europe.

The truth is, ALL rulers, regardless of philosophy, can expect to be deposed if they cannot rule effectively. Sometimes they have good enough subordinates to keep things afloat, and other times those subordinates just say fuck it and stage a coup. But this applies just as much to responsible rulers who are trying their best and just suck as it does to authoritarian ones who just suck.

Perhaps what I'm not liking here is that you're equating AI with "self-reliance" when the whole point of Authoritarianism is external control. Self-reliance can be seen as an aspect of "responsible" in fact, sans altruism. The fact this can be argued is problematic for your clarification.

>> No.26895005

Except that they didn´t ask but instead drafted. And once you were drafted, running away would result in imprisonment or worse (one american soldier was shot for deserting).

The truth is, if Russia (and, to a lesser extent, the western powers) hadn´t been able to force countless young men to go to their early graves, Germany would have won.

Besides, if you put "authority" where it is because you consider it less "good" than other ideologies, aren´t you just replacing good and evil with synonyms?

>> No.26895029

From my time in Beijing, my impression of China is like a shit-load of people milling around and going about their business in a highly polluted and cramped environment while occasionally being reminded that they are supposed to be Communists and going "If you say so, dude" while rapidly (and I mean insanely fast) becoming middle-class.

Totalitarianism collectivism as you put it still remains in some factions of the military and the aggressive but largely ineffectual intelligence organisations. It is also sometimes cited by businessmen in the infrastructure and resourcing industries, but they usually just build their crazy loop bypass that nobody is ever going to use to a city nobody lives in/oil pipeline around your shitty shack instead of through it.

It's also more socially fragile than most people assume, there are a lot of very large and influential disgruntled groups that want change, and I wouldn't put it past them to get violent in the next few decades.

>> No.26895089

Yeah, though I'm kind of surprised this isn't common knowledge. China is more capitalist than the US by most respects. At least, they more closely resemble lassez faire industry these days.

Although Chinese children still have to write essays about why they love communism in order to graduate high school, it's kind of universally a joke and all the ones I've spoke to say there is universal- not just widespread- agreement that communism is bullshit that nobody believes in. Rather, it's more that the government had a very incremental shift and never had a formal revolution or admitted that it was wrong, and is trying to save face and preserve its legitimacy.

They are exceptionally authoritarian in many ways though. They don't trust their citizens with the internet for starters. And they make hilarious use of overt propoganda.

That said, chinese culture and mindset as a whole is still VERY collectivist. the chinese people still have a very strong mindset of filial piety and duty to family. Economically they're capitalist, but socially they are still very much collectivist.

I'd make a similar comparison in Japan. Collectivist culture. Largely capitalist economics. China envied their post-war success and started emulating it, except with 100x the labor force.

Now therein lies a quandry for your system. Is collectivism==socialism? or is it the more subtle cultural mindset in which conformity itself is morality?

The japanese have a word for evil (aku) and a word for incorrect (tadashikunai), but they almost always use the word "different" (chigau) when they want to say you are wrong. Because being different and being wrong are the same thing to them. They recognize the relativism, they just don't give a shit about your individuality.

And then 8% of Japan jumped in front of an oncoming train.

>> No.26895121

By Barbarian I don't mean the Roman, American, or European definition. I mean actual fantasy barbarians. Like that army in The Postman or in hundreds of other movies and books. Also, many tribal groups have chosen their leaders based on who the toughest fighter is, historically speaking. Personally, I think the Souix and most other north american tribal groups would be on the RI side, while the Aztecs would be on the CA side. My mom is an archeologist, I learned very earily never to call native americans Barbarians.

I am attempting to expand on the existing grid, leaving CE character still comfortable within the much expanded pasture of AI. I do think that totalitarianism is less optimal than democracy or enlightened constitutional monarchy or republicanism. Yes, I do. But I don't think they're absolutely evil any more than I think democracies are absolutely good. The idea was to remove as much morality as possible... but as in all human endeavour it is pretty much impossible to remove all bias.

>> No.26895156

You said it better than I could have.
Anyway, I like this bit:
>Rather, it's more that the government had a very incremental shift and never had a formal revolution or admitted that it was wrong, and is trying to save face and preserve its legitimacy.
Revolution is a very important staple in Chinese politics. That’s how China works. Regime change? Revolution time. And I don’t just mean the Communists. Revolution is how they went from one dynasty to another, and they usually accept the winners until the next one rolls around because the new guys ran out of steam and started to get fucked up by administrating so many people and places.

If China ever becomes fully democratic, I would suggest they use their word for “revolution” as their word for “election” to keep it that way. It would probably help them legitimize it in their culture a bit more.

>> No.26895169

No, Collectivism can include, and often does, include Socialism, but a socialist system is largely a function of a Responsible society, one where taking care of everyone is part and parcel of the ideal. So a Socialist Paradise would probably be an Enlightened Responsible Collective, but could also be Balanced Responsible (with more individuality) or Balanced Collective (with less individuality).

>> No.26895184

Having thought about your ideas for some time now, I don´t think they are an improvement over the existing system.

First, because your grid is vastly harder to understand than "Good" - "Evil". Second, because your categories are just as ambigous as the current ones. Third, because your systems does not work without bias. Fourth (and most importantly) because alignements are never fully applicable in real life. The actions of no one can be fully represented by a single alignement.

So, 9/10 for the effort and the grid.

>> No.26895197

Oh, as for common knowledge... too much of what happens in China stays in China... except for the outrageous failures in construction and public safety... those make it to the states just fine. Also, I'm a Chinese Lit major. I only studied the rise of the Communists because it was part of my history classes. The last time I considered China as a modern country was during the Beijing Olympics. But thanks for the update.

>> No.26895221

Fair enough. Thanks for the appraisal. And I'm glad you liked the grid... That took me a lot of time to make look pretty. A Graphic Artist I'm not.

>> No.26895391

Yes well, banging asian girls usually helps keep one informed on such things.

I think you missed my point. Which is that collectivism can, and often does include- *capitalism*. That's where things start to get weird for your model.

It's sort of the old "socially liberal/economically liberal" paradigm that people seem to take pretty seriously.

Also, for the record, I think you overestimate how many people are centrist. Judging by Gallup polls, I'd say a good 30% or so at least are fanatical (15% to either side, though usually estimates say 25% to either side, so I'm actually being very uh... well... conservative here). I agree though that enlightened are <1%.

>> No.26895402

>authoritarian individualist

>> No.26895510

Speaking of graphic art, you should color wheel that shit for added emphasis. Mostly in that Green is out of place. ROYGBIV yo.

>> No.26895526

What is the difference between "Objectively Balanced" and "Absolutely Balanced"?

>> No.26895579

heh on the banging asian girls.
I did get that you were saying Collectivism can include Capitalism, but really any of them can. Capitalism is an economic system largely divorced from morality or ethics.
In the 90% I include the Centrists and all the Moderates. Maybe it should be lower, but I don't think most people would actually kill someone just because they held a view point that contradicted their own, and that's pretty much my threshold for fanaticism. Maybe I'm too picky.

>> No.26895597

He already explained that up above, but I shall repost
"Objectively Balanced can see the validity of each side's arguments and apply each as need for the situation.
Absolutely Balanced refuse to take sides, being completely disinterested in the debate."

>> No.26895633

Okay, so Objectively Balanced is playable, Absolutely Balanced is dumb.

>> No.26895638

Where would he put brown then? I think he was going for contrasting colors, not complementary ones. except that he put both blues together.

>> No.26895662

Agreed, but I needed something that corrisponded to "I am totally and utterly disenterested in your squabbles" But it could also be a highly enlightened Arbiter who listens and judges cases on merit alone, striving always to be as unbiased as possible.

>> No.26895724

Ehhhhhhhh honestly I think plenty of people would kill for their political beliefs if there was a war for it and they weren't old. Like they won't arbitrarily commit murder, but if Texas declared war on California, I could see that going to shit pretty fast. I've heard talk from residents of both that generally includes some form or torture followed by death and genocide regarding the other. If you called them on it they'd say "no I'm just kidding" but the Zimbardo effect suggests they probably aren't.

And I don't know who you've been talking to, but just about every person I've talked to who self-identifies as capitalist takes it as a moral absolute.

The reasoning generally goes that they see no division between economic freedom and social freedom and that freedom itself is a moral absolute. Therefor any infringement on freedom is immoral. Yes, this is fanatical, and yes, they do take it to logical extremes of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism to be precise. Or Ayn Rand "Objectivism" in some cases.

But yeah, I think you must have had your head in the sand on the cold war if you think economic system was somehow divorced from morality.

>> No.26895744

That would be an incredibly shitty role

>> No.26895788

I don't think economics was divorced from morality... I think it can be. The sides in the cold war and in modern thinking have conflated the two, making them identical, but realistically a collectivist socialist state can be just as capitalistic as a libertarian one. The Mongols, for all their brutality, were very socialistic in some regards. Just because two ideas have historically had correlation doesn't mean they always must. But I get your point.
However, the Braci grid makes no mention of socio-economic policy, simply because that would be an entire other axis.

As for killing in war, I don't consider that quite the same thing as fanaticism. In war, people kill each other because they are on opposite sides. When I say kill each other over ideological differences I largely mean in the absence of war. In war, you can expect the fanatics to be not just willing participants, but the ones who commit atrocities willfully and often gleefully. The Fanatic is a bully, dedicated to his cause but not quite convinced it lacks flaws, so he strikes out in rage any time his views are threatened. Not just anger, but active hatred and rage, usually driven by no small amount of fear.

>> No.26895811

agreed, but might fit an NPC. I can think of one from Stranger in a Strange land that fits, and of course many fictional supernatural creatures.

>> No.26895830

A dictator or sociopath.

>> No.26895916

yup or an orc chieftan

>> No.26895923

By and large, PCs are going to be murder hobos no matter what you do. Why give them an alignment system they are going to ignore anyway. With my new system, it might actually shape the way they act. A Fanatical Authoritarian Collective Fighter (Drill Sergant) would be a damned sight different than a Responsible Individualist Fighter (Rebel) without any difference in build... and both would be viable characters. The Responsible Collectivist could be a Militia man, while the AI could be a Mercenary. The BA one would be a thug, the BC one would be a Commisar, the BR one would be police officer, and the BI one would be a wandering swordsman and thrill seeker. It informs a larger perspective than just saying "I'm a CG fighter." because the Good part doesn't really effect much and the Chaos means, what, you don't like towns?

>> No.26895992

Point, but then again- the historical conflation of views further muddles the clarification you were hoping to make. A player will invent a character who is a capitalist collectivist (RC paladin for instance), and a GM will tell him he just fell for endorsing capitalism (which is "chaotic" as far as transplanting game rules). Cue shitstorm this was meant to solve.

And yeah, fear and insecurity is something the world has in abundance, sir. And I reiterate that I think a sizable portion of New Yorkers would gleefully administer genocide to the American South if there was war and nobody told them otherwise. And an equal proportion of Texans would be right back at them given the opportunity. At least in my observations, people really hate eachother. At the slightest provocation. For fuck's sake we bring assault rifles to city hall meetings now over healthcare policy reform!

>> No.26896009

That's oversimplification. Plenty of people like playing evil characters for this reason or that.

What I like about standard system is that it at least gives more nuance to morality instead of being so annoyingly dualistic. I don't like such morality, I prefer messed up characters that sometimes do good, sometimes evil and can't be easily shoehorned into morality system. But for that you need your own system which fits your needs.

>> No.26896081

You keep saying that, but dude it is not an obvious logical conclusion- and that's kind of a problem. The biggest complaint you've received from shitposters is that your explanation is unclear. I feel I have a strong grasp of your 4 fundamental concepts, but when I put Authoritarian and Individualism together I do not get orc chieftan. I get ACLU feminazi brutally enforcing people's civil rights with an iron fist.

>> No.26896090

Gotcha. I shall have to add a note about economics and governmental systems.

Having lived in both New York and Texas... as well as Colorado, Utah, Michigan, Israel, Michigan, Florida, Michigan... you may be right about the genocide thing. Okay, 80% are moderates or centrists, 19% are Fanatics of varying degrees, 1% are enlightened, and 1/10th of 1% are Absolutely Balanced boring ass judges or hateful dickheads who can't be arsed to care about anything.

>> No.26896125

Yeah, no. Fighting for the rights of others is selfless. Now, if she was really only acting that way because she wanted to be obeyed, sure... but if she is actually fighting to keep people from being oppressed that's a Responsible individual... and if she's brutal about it, she's a fanatic.

>> No.26896137

Why the fuck do you keep going back to Michigan?? Dungeon crawls?

And I'd wrap the absolute balance in the 1%enlighten group, really, because you're not going to find 1% who will say that. You do realize you just made an alignment cube, right?

>> No.26896149

But I shall consider this when I do a more complete write up. This is very much a work in progress, otherwise I wouldn't have spent all night answering questions on the subject. There is only so much one can do in one's head without asking others to spot the problems.

>> No.26896192

I tend to think of it more as an alignment bow. There are rings, but none of them are full thickness. I keep... yeah, actually. My dad lived in michigan and I moved here when he got custody of me when I was ten. THen I went to Israel to study and serve in the IDF, then moved back to the US when my dad's health failed and he needed full time help (diabetes and viral heart disease in the same year) then he started going blind and after a slip and fall had limited mobility. So we moved him to florida where he died a year later. So I moved back to Michigan where I had friends... who were, of course, my old Roleplaying group.

>> No.26896205

Alignment Bowl. not bow. And more like a buntpan maybe.

>> No.26896234

and michigan may, well, suck, but Florida is sooo much worse. At least in Michigan you can get places without getting on the freeway (although since I live a mile from i-75, i use it to get everywhere... oddly, in florida I also lived a mile from i-75, but then everywhere was a 15 mile drive.) but michigan has seasons.

>> No.26896235

AH HA! There's the problem. You assume authoritarians are selfish! THATS WHATS BEEN BOTHERING ME.

There are plenty of altruistic authoritarians. Pretty much every parent-child relationship follows this dynamic, and many people take it into adulthood as a fact about human nature. And frankly, it's not trivially false. People do act like children when it comes to politics. And sometimes even I get exhausted trying to teach them responsibility and just wish I could say "fuck it, give me the deathnote, I'm going to purify society".

That's not selfish. I'm not doing it strictly for myself. Hell, I live like an ascetic hermit already- nobody fucks with me and what goes on in the world doesn't affect me. But if I could make the world better with uncompromising paternalistic authority, I just might if I thought for a moment it were actually feasible.

So it has nothing to do with personal gain- it has to do with what you think maintains order in society. Whether you think people are basically responsible or basically irresponsible. If you think people are by and large irresponsible, then you think the responsible should rule over them with complete authority. THAT is authoritarianism. Nothing more, nothing less.

>> No.26896279

I'm not a fan of seasons. I'm particularly not a fan of crime. My dungeon crawl joke wasn't referring to role-playing. It was referring to exploring urban ruins and surviving random encounters IRL.

But Florida is ridiculously long. Takes 1 day to drive to florida and another whole day to drive to Miami. Something's wrong with that.

Of course driving through Pennsylvania is about just as bad, because in addition to the length, you go up and down, up and down. Fuck that state. It has no dimensional sanity. You enter it and some arbitrary amount of time later god decides you get to leave.

>> No.26896325

Here is a Mandelbrot set.
Chart your behavior on it as a point.
If the point ever leaves the boundary of the set you inevitably decend into madness and murderhobo.

But seriously, if you want to remove the concepts of good and evil from the game and replace them with politics and philosophy, then you are likely to have much better success simply removing alignment altogether.
After all every character, even if they are only a direct hollow wish fulfillment or projection of your player, even then they have goals and a philosophy.
Your system has 27 distinct alignments.... and all of them are less than intuitive as some have pointed out.
More importantly if a player is bound on murderhoboing it up, then it isn't very likely that calling him an irresponsible authoritarian with unbalanced tendancies will remedy that.
But a smite evil sure as hell works.
Or you could forgoe the verbosity and make his actions have consequences.

>> No.26896353

I don't assume Authoritarians are selfish, I assume that they tend not to think in terms of selfless acts. They either seek leadership positions or subservient positions according to their will. But an AI individual assumes that all authority should either be in their hands or in the hands of those they have chosen to follow. They are both individualists, meaning not that they want to be left alone, but that they believe the individual is more important than the society. That's what an Individualist is in this context. It's not about thinking just for yourself, but valuing the individual above society. Authoritarians value structure and control while the Responsible value giving and mutual support. Authoritarians do not trust people to be responsible without them being forced to. Responsible people believe that people can and should be responsible both for themselves and usually for others.
From what you say you sound like a Responsible individual who would, reluctantly, assume an authoritarian position. But you're definitely on the Responsible side of the divide. The Authoritarian seeks control or to be controlled.

>> No.26896409

The problem with removing alignment altogether is then you lack a framework to express in a shared language your character's ideology. You're left trying to explain that your character is Neitzchien with a side of Cant and Heigel... and having a spell that detects Heigelians is probably silly... although I do like the mandelbrot Idea. But are you talking the bug or the colored areas? Are the bugs madness?

I just prefer a framework where everyone doesn't always have to pick from three essentially meaningly flavors of vanilla or batshit loon. I want a system that can say "Here are 9 different but playable ideologies... and here are the levels of dedication you can have." those gradients spell the difference between a terrorist and a saint after all.

>> No.26896431

I don't live in detroit. I live like 20 miles north of it. Much less crime out here away from the slums.
as for PA? Yah, I use Canada when I'm driving to New York, much nicer. As for Seasons? I love snow. I grew up in Utah and Colorado after all. Snow is awesome.

>> No.26896452

D&D is a world where evil is manifested in the form of demons and devils that will actually go out there and eat your babies with sauce. Please go and apply your philosophy bullshit to Demogorgon and come back to me after that.

Also >>26892378

>> No.26896471

I don't find it to be a reasonable alternative to alignments, but i find it to be an excellent explaination.

Through my experience, i'd define the both axis much the same way.
The main thing that this does, is take distance from "evil", which imo is the main problem. Seeing good/evil as Selfless/Egoistic would be my wording, but besides that, I interpret the alignments much the same way.

The 27 grid alignment system is, not meant for use i gather, it's meant for explaination. "Here is some examples of the particular aligments, with their focus intesified or softened."

In conclusion, I like the system.

>> No.26896486

Yeah, you're kind of losing legitimacy entirely there. Now we're talking about paladins who will choose to fall in order to do what is right. You've just violated the entire purpose of purifying alignments.

I am reluctant because in truth I AM on the responsible end of things. But I've met and respect genuine authoritarians. And I could easily roleplay one who demonstrates no reluctance at all.

At this point, I allege your definition of Authoritarian is fatally flawed. Fix it, or sail to ruin- your call. Read Hobbes Leviathan. It's not about seeking control and certainly not seeking to be controlled- it's thinking control is necessary. That monarchs and aristocrats alone are capable of responsibility, and that they must bestow it upon the irresponsible to keep society from collapsing. If you represent Authoritarianism as anything less, it is a strawman.

Psychopaths and insane depsots are strawmen. Orc chieftans are also strawmen, because that disappears completely as a viable philosophy once education improves (in other words, it's a product of stupidity, not relativism). But Hobbesian authoritarianism has not disappeared. The elite responsible few ruling over the wretched masses can be portrayed as a noble pursuit in a grim world.

You can either fix the strawmen, and make it better, or continue arguing on behalf of the flaws you claim you're trying to fix. Your call. But i have to PTFO now. Good luck TBO.

>> No.26896511


>>26896471 here.
Demogorgon would, if my understanding serves me correctly, be just as Authoritarian Individualist as he is Chaotic Evil. Hell, looking at the gradients, it'd be Enlightened Authorian Individualist, while still eating babies and raping your sister.

Demogorgon, along with most other demons, would be the pinnacle of egoistic powerlust. Remember, all they want is suffering and destruction, and the alignment does not oppose that.

Did you even read the blog?

>> No.26896527

yeah, it's really still a nine grid alignment system that expands on the traditional into less biased terminology. the gradiants are flavoring, but a moderate, fanatic, and enlightened all basically agree with each other... they just have different ways of expressing it.

>> No.26896552


I really like this, it makes a lot of sense, though it may be difficult to explain to new players. At least as a DM's tool, it can help define PCs/NPCs motivations.

>> No.26896573

... okay.
The thing is that what your trying to do runs counter to the very core foundation of dnd. Church and Sauron.
Any game based off medieval europe is going to feature religion heavily. Moreover said religion is going to have a black and white view of morality because, for generations on end, the Church WAS the moral compass.
So shades of grey morality weren't an issue when asking the nearest or most influential priest could answer any moral quandry.
Secondly the idea of Good fighting Evil.
The lord of the rings did it. Fantasy novels do it. Religions do it. Real life people sometimes believe it. Its a popular concept. And while i appreciate that you would like something more universally applicable.... i think your simplifying things too much.

A character of mine was once asked to justify the second world war by a time travelling sumerian.
He responded that the infinite divine takes many forms, but that none of them are on our side. All we can hope to do is to be on thier side.

Belief and philosophy come in many flavors. That which violates the tennants and mores of a society or faith is deviant or evil. Even if evil as a concept doesnt exist this is true for the people in that situation.

Tl; dr. Good players and Dms should be able to resolve almost any moral problem without graphs. Without rules even.

>> No.26896582

Being able to roleplay different alignments doens't change your own one. And you can respect anyone anywhere on the Grid and hate anyone anywhere on the grid... unless you're a fanatic. I am, I'd like to think, and Enlightened Responsibly Balanced individual. I like people who are totalitarians, although i disagree with their politics and i respect the heck out of a lot of them too. I give the example of an Ork chieftan because they are absolutely the ones most likely to be encountered by pathfinder / AD&D players... which this system is largely meant to be used with, as opposed to real life political debate. There it's flaws are legion, but I'm trying to keep things mostly simple.

>> No.26896599

very much so. Thank you for point it out.

>> No.26896610


I'd argue that this post is misunderstanding authoritarian, and drawing upon your understanding on the word smudges the message of the poster.

And why is it wrong? Just like the old system, it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Orc Cheiftains, however primitive, would still be commanding the orcs from the idea that Orcs need to be controlled. If it's from stupidity, lust for power, or a yearning to reach goals, it's all still authoritarian.

Not just that, a paladin falling in order to do what is right would easily be described as LE in the old system. As mentioned, noone wants to say they're "evil", and a paladin falling would do exactly that. "I did it for the better of the people."

Your point really falls flat on me...

>> No.26896654

My system doesn't discount the existence of good and evil, it removes it from the equation. Everyone believes they are good and doing the right thing. Every single one of the Braci alignments can have good people and bad people in it, although some are more likely to cluster in one area than others. But Good and Evil are largely meaningless constructs for gaming. If I tell you I'm playing a Neutral Good Elf Warrior I might as well have said "I'm playing and Elf Warrior." If I say I'm playing a Fanatically Authoritarian Collectivist Elf Warrior, you know a lot more about the character. each choice there has value and imparts information. And I can still have the FACEW trying to be a good person in the face of what she sees as people flaunting the law and being selfish pricks.

>> No.26896667

well said

>> No.26896797

You could much more easily convey that information through roleplaying.
Because such nuances of character, while interesting and vital, should not be reduced to a few letters on a character sheet.
And if everyone always believed they were good and right shame and guilt wouldn't be a very big deal.
Everyone SAYS they were right, but not everyone FEELS that way. Again roleplaying.
If the setting or game isn't narrativist enough to support such varied nuances then your proposal is an unnecessary complication of a minor mechanical facet of gameplay. In such a situation the group is best served by strict deliniation between good and evil. The dm in this case should be the source of an absolute morality. X is evil Y is good. All that do X are evil all that do Y are good.

>> No.26896858

Wouldn't you still have to?
Seeing as the new CE, Authoritarian Individualist, could be a demon, it could just as well be someone who first and foremost looks out for themselves. Not being interested in others doesn't bar the option to help, you just put yourself first.

And you'd still have the oppertunity to be just as nuanced a character. Having a character that acts out of self interest, but has someone that they hold dear would still be just as valid an option as having a CE character value someone.

I don't see how conveying info through roleplaying counteracts the idea that evil is an interpretation of actions.

>> No.26896894


If what you are afraid of is becoming generic, then why are you afraid of that?
These alignments are abstract, to say the least. Sure, it's less about interpretation, but that doesn't really change anything.

To me, it seems like the moral discussions would change much more into whether something was good and evil relative to the situation and encourage the roleplay that way, moreso than reducing something as complex as morality to an axis in a chart.

>> No.26896929

Again I am faced with the question of why rules exist. Can a roleplayer say "I swing my sword up between the beasts thighs"? Yes. But if the rules aren't there to support it, the gm is probably going to say "okay, roll to hit." Nuanced rules help make things more real, more fleshed out. If a question is never asked, 90% of all roleplayers will not think to answer it. If the choice of alignment is predominantly meaningless, players, even good players will ignore it. "I'm good" and that's it. They won't think twice about how it shapes their character. Palladium games for all their insanity made you think about it a bit more, but again, not enough. The Braci Grid isn't for everyone, but it is for GMs who want to encourage their players to think a little more or for players who want a new way of describing their characters that isn't essentially a meaningless choice between vanilla options.

A rule that is provided but ignored is an option not taken. A rule that is not provided at all is simply a missed opportunity. The rules exist to offer guidelines and when those guidelines are unclear, the guidance they offer is lacking.

>> No.26896974

Well said. I could not have said it better myself. Yes, morality should be a question that is always asked. Your braci alignment gives you a framework, but you still have to ask "Am I okay doing this. Is this the right / good thing to do? Will my gods approve?"

>> No.26897024

Well, as I said, I like the system...
It is basically how I use alignments, just fleshed out and explained.

>> No.26897074

The two ideas do not directly invalidate one another so much as they render the other moot.
If you are roleplaying your character and thier motivations, then your alignment is
Simply a shorthand for a more complicated set of behavior. And one that changes at that.
It seems a little silly to meticulously chart every decision, ever small moral failing, ever personal triumph. Especially when you could just go play the character.
On the flip side a set alignment by its very nature constricts a character to acting "in type". And more rigid narrowly defined definitions provide a tighter straight jacket.

Moral relativism is an interesting concept, but its not one that really applies to dnd.

I mean if you want to run a game for philosophy majors. Go for it. Everyone else would most likely find the system too

>> No.26897078


Well all, Thank you for your help and feedback and interesting perspectives. Unfortunately, I must run out and do real things. feel free to leave any other comments or flames on the WotNO site.

>> No.26897178

Once again this confirms libertarianism for best political philosophy

>> No.26897249

I don't see it as mapping a characters behaviour, I see it as a tool to help play your character a specific way.

When i play a LE character, i often find myself constricted by not the alignment, but the implications of evil. Should we compare this to the system proposed here, he would act Collective Authoritarian. He is the kinda guy that want to have shit get done, despite moral consequence, but even he has moral values. The problem is, that Evil implies that he doesn't.

I don't see that interpretation of his alignment as binding, i see it as helping. He'd do what he can do to improve society, but he understands that power is needed.

It helps me, and probably a lot of newbies, take decisions in character, because they have a good idea of what that characters motivations encompass.

And moral relativism certainly does apply to DnD. While there is inherently good and evil beings, (and even beings created from these things), there is many humans who, like my character, has a hard time explaining why he fears entering a "Circle of Protection, Good", as he doesn't see himself as evil. Quite the opposite, he sees himself as rather good, but his actual alignment reflects that he does not recognize innocent beings the same way as others.

I would like to have a system like this to describe my character, cus he acts from what he sees as a moral high-ground, but with twisted ideals. He's a traumatized and brainwashed soldier, that doesn't exactly make him evil.

I find that having a springboard like this improves the way i roleplay my character, much less than it restricts him.

>> No.26897368

With respect you misunderstand slightly.
I usually run a very narrative game.
And i usually run for that 10%.
If i fail to ask you your alignment its not because it doesnt matter.
Its because i don't believe you.
The actions you take and the decisions made in game are a better represenation of alignment than what's on your sheet.

I agree with many of your points, but rules for concrete things like combat are not the same as rules governing moral decisions.
Frankly there are no rules governing moral decisions.
The final judge of the actions of a paladin is thier god. This applies to laypersons as well.
If there are many gods then there are many truths.

My players arent "kept in line" by alignment. They are allowed to do as they wish...
With the understanding that thier actions have consequences.

An alignment system is a crutch that often leads to players NOT thinking, because obviously their character will act in an authoritarian fashion.

So while i agree with many of the reasons you decided to overhaul the alignment system, i dont reach the same conclusions

>> No.26897462

... acting in a fashion likely to be percieved as evil often causes those around you to percieve you as evil.

Just because your character is a moral relativist doesnt mean the setting is.
Course.... the same thing often applies to LG characters in my games.

>> No.26897686

The best way to fix alignments is not use them. If you must make it mechanical, decide what is considered a dire sin in your setting and the weight of these dire sins is put upon the soul of the character in question when they willingly commit the sin.

Then determine how one absolves sin in your setting and weigh this against the sin. There you fucking go. You have a means for shit like paladins to detect "evil" and don't have to use a big huge fucking counter intuitive alignment system. Is it so hard?

>> No.26897815

They just aren't edgy and trying to do things that even society at large would consider evil, then justify it.

>> No.26897818

Then tell me what you would determain as a dire sin. Like, what would constitute DEFINATE evil?

I'm sure, as you might've guessed by now, that most of the things you'd define can be turned into something that is not evil if the situation asks for it. It's better to leave the idea of good and evil up to the player.

That being said, yes, a good way to fix alignments would be to not use them, but i find them to be a valuable tool to act in character.

>> No.26897883

I think that you will find most real life humans don't percieve good and evil as a static thing, and from what i can gather in your previous posts, neither do you think this.

I find it helps immersion that humans act like... Well, humans. Sure, there is definate moral creatures (archons and demons) and yes, there is definate moral humans, but most humans are not definately moral beings, and act less from an inherently good or evil standpoint.

LG characters will not always spare people, and CE characters will not always murder people, eventhough their alignments might indicate that. I find the exact moot part of your characters alignment to be that. Good is not inherently, explictly good, and likewise evil.

>> No.26897942

hence the reason it'[s harder to change and aligments are a GENERAL (ue very fucking broad goddamn brush) idea of what your character would do when nobody in authority was around.

Are they going to take the easy way with the obviously evil serial killer, or are they going to allow him to possibly escape because that's what both their moral code AND the law says is right.

>> No.26898077

But that's not what this system is trying to accomplish. The system says nothing about your morality, you can be any alignment and have an entire third morality dimension that you decide while you play.

Look at the evil serial killer. If you find that death sentence is a morally justifiable decision, then you'd argue that you should kill him. If you don't, then you'd argue that you shouldn't. Two people discussing this could easily be of the same alignment, and both could justify their behaviour quite easily, depending on the character.

Say they are Responsible Individualists. Some would argue that "Everyone should have their chance" while others would argue that "He is a danger to any one." Both are trying to be responsible and look at the individual, with very different moral conclusions.

I am uncertain of what conclusion you are trying to reach.

>> No.26898150


Oh jeez, this alignment chart is completely useless.

You can't go so far into detail, it restrains the players. The alignment system is there as a base, you let them decide if they uphold good in an authoritarian Emprah 40k way or a Nearly-Pacifist hey lets end conflict way, or some other solution that you didn't have on this silly chart.

The path to that answer is far more interesting than starting at Fanatic Authoritarian Individualist.

One Pro though: it would at least force the Chaotic Neutral (or subset thereof) dipshits into admitting what they really are.

>> No.26898177

He does state in his article that it's just a way to explain some of the variations, and that the 9 that is created is what he suggests that you use.

>> No.26898279

It's mostly selfish-neither-selfless on the whole good-evil thing. Is your hypotetical murderhobo killing for his own profit, or revenge and not because your reign of terror ends here because too many innocents will fall by your hand.

Basically it's what western society would consider "good and evil". Unfortunately much like aspergers the RPG community is filled with rules and morality don't apply to me types.

>> No.26898428

What are you even saying by now?
Like, I literally do not understand what you are trying to tell me.

If my murderhobo is a maniac, then he's a maniac. He doesn't need an alignment to tell him that he's a maniac, that's not what this alignment system is trying to accomplish either.

Not just that, you didn't even address the people around him ACTUALLY MAKING THE MORAL DECISION....

>> No.26898658
File: 4 KB, 100x100, jessegrant6d7d31b59cdcb02bf99b027638dbdab9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>tfw The Bearded One

>> No.26898862


I think you're overcomplicating and overthinking a system that has its simplicity as its chief merit.

The alignment grid is basically functional and, with a bit of thought, provides an appropriate broad category to put any character in. By trying to break it down into something more precisely descriptive I feel like come up with something overly prescriptive, and have also exposed various quirks and foibles in your own understanding of the various alignments that would make it totally unusable for many people (like me).

>> No.26898885


>uphold good in an authoritarian Emprah 40k way

>implying the Emprah is Good

>implying anybody in 40k is Good

>> No.26899006

If anyone in 40k is good, it'd be the Emprah.
Aside from that I agree.

>> No.26899473

Yes, that's me. I'm a Jewish Rabbi. hence the beard. Also hence the nickname, for I have a huge red beard.

>> No.26901520

I don't think "enlightened" and "authoritarian" mean what you think they mean.

>> No.26904625

>I'm a Jewish Rabbi
As opposed to a Christian Rabbi or an Islamic Rabbi or an atheist Rabbi?

Anyway, you don't need that "Copyright 2013" there. It just makes things ugly. If people want more, a name or URL is good enough.

>> No.26905330

The fuck does any of this shit mean?

>> No.26905458
File: 38 KB, 480x400, political compass motivations.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

OP, you just took the standard Political Compass and flipped it upside down, you faggot.

>> No.26905625

For fucksake, people. If you're going to alter the alignment system, don't make it a fangly complicated mess of out-of-context words.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say "If you're going to alter the alignment system, use a different system entirely rather than sticking to the axis diagrams."

Just have people choose motivations and determine their morality based on what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve it. Safety? Martial power? Political power? Helping the needy? All sorts of things. Have them choose two out of a list.

"Oh look," says Bob, "I rolled 'Helping the Needy' and 'Martial Power'. I wonder what character concepts I could come up with based on that?" Judge characters based on what they want and how they're achieving it rather than some arbitrary and flawed grid of ethical personality types.

>> No.26908739

I lol'd after reading the blue and then the purple and I'm deep in the purple

>> No.26909151

I'm don't play RPGs and I'm not sure what mechanical function they serve in games but if you're after a system for categorizing people's belief structures that doesn't use evil then isn't magic's colour pie dramatically better than this nonsense?

>> No.26909222

>I'm don't play RPGs
Why are you even here then?

>> No.26909247
File: 103 KB, 749x644, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Also, do you mean something like this?

>> No.26909266

>courtesy of http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

>> No.26910223

Alright, I think your alignment system doesn't work. Why? Let's split it up into two cases.
Case 1: These two axes are different from good/evil, replacing them but not placing value judgments
In that case, these axes simply measure qualities, correct? These qualities are not intrisically damning or praiseworthy. So then why these qualities in particular? Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaos are used in D&D because they're intrinsically important to the game. The game wants epic conflicts between heroes and villains, between order and chaos. You have antiheroes and misguided villains, knights and knaves, demons and deacons. The alignment system isn't perfect, but it picks those qualities because they are important to the intended narrative. The qualities you picked aren't nearly as iconic. Unless you're playing Politics: The Votenning, these qualities are not necessarily defining a character. When I meet someone new, I don't immediately ask them if they're a Responsible Collectivist. The human condition is far too complicated to boil down to such a small set of axes, and thus an alignment system simply serves to highlight certain important traits of a character. If these traits are not important, we might as pick any other arbitrary set. Why not have alignments based on Cat Fucking and Distrust of French Cheeses? My character could DESPISE CHEESE/CARLOS MCCONNELL TIER. What does that tell me? Not much.

>> No.26910239

Case 2: These qualities are especially important, and thus replace good and evil
In this case, these traits are defining. They are especially important. Let's think about this. Authoritarian/Responsible is clunky. These two are not necessarily opposites in common parlance, and come laden with such baggage that's hard to think about what's really going on. Essentially your authoritarian axis defines the degree to which one accepts the imposition of will, whether it is you imposing your will on another, or another imposing their will on you. By your system, the most 'evil' people are the people that impose their will most absolutely. Then the collective/individualist axis is a little more murky, but in the case of CE/AI, it is one individual imposing their will over everyone.
So what does that mean? The Lawful Good Gods of D&D are the most evil of all in this new system. They impose their own values on everyone, and they do so using force (paladins/magic). The archetypal paladin, by smiting evil and righting perceived wrongs, is interfering with the autonomy of others. These Gods impose their wills so thoroughly and absolutely, that reality warps to their desires. That's one hell of a chaotic evil. You might say that they're Lawful Good because they fight other people imposing their wills, but demons fight each other all the time. It's just one set of people imposing their wills on another set of people that desire to impose their wills on other. Who's the most good? Not libertarians, although they're 'more good', as libertarians oftentimes want others to become libertarian. Cultural imperialism is a concept because the imposition of ideas is just as much an imposition as any other.

>> No.26910248

The most good thing in the universe would be a mote of inert matter that just so happened to have sentience. It imposes nothing, and demands nothing. If it has desires and suppresses them, it is Lawful Good (self-sacrificing) and if it does not, then it is Chaotic Good (it fulfills its own desires to the maximum, the maximum just happens to be zero. With non-zero desires, then it must act, and action imposes something on something else somewhere, which moves it inherently less 'good'). So the grand fight between good and evil is now a grand fight with senile old people, inert motes of matter, and sloths doing nothing against the wicked onslaught of God, paladins, and priests. Sounds like the world's lamest r/atheism post. When you have good and evil, they're hard to define. But trying to make your own replacements and rationalize things is even harder, because your new system will also have to be consistent. With good and evil, we can at least approximate, but when you need to encompass all of everything into a consistent system, you will fail. It's a task that philosophers have attempted and failed at for millenia, and any attempt that comes close will probably be a lot more complicated and terrible to use for something like a roleplaying game.
Finally, part of the current problem with alignments is how vague they are. Adding more gradients doesn't solve this, because it just makes sorting characters into these different shades harder. We can't even agree on whether characters are Lawful or Neutral half of the time, how are we supposed to differentiate that with even more levels? Furthermore, is there a significant difference between these levels? Do these shades of authoritarian really matter?

>> No.26913952

It means Responsible as in taking personal responsibility, rather than using Authority to take responsibility for/over others. It's not talking about "I always look both ways before crossing the road" type responsibility, but it is the right word.

>> No.26914389

Responsible is a bad word choice. We can understand "collectivist" vs. "individualistic" fine. Fanatical to moderate makes sense as well, but Enlightened existing beyond Fanatical confuses the heck out of me.

So rename responsible and remove the whole enlightened layer and you'd have something functional.

>> No.26914403


That's just a repeat of the Individualist/Collectivist axis then.

>> No.26916439

>dose walls of text
You made an amazing case I thought. Bravo sir anon, bravo.

>> No.26916737

That's my biggest problem with this alignment system. Individualist and Responsible are basically the same damn thing as he has defined them, and neither Collectivist or Authoritarian really describe their polar opposites in any concrete way..

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.