Dungeon Fantasy: "Alignment" Traits

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

Tip of the iceberg. There is no "end of story",

See, I already said our differences were going to be insurmountable.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Thanks for all who've replied, but please stay on topic. I'm just asking for where folks might view traits falling on the outlined axis, not whether "alignments" are appropriate to DF or not. Same things goes for hairsplitting on traits. Thanks again, I'm making notes. :-)

Could we get a description of what your categories mean to you?

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by cbower

This bothered me enough to change Pacifism on demons to Divine Curse a few years ago.

That's a good compromise. And you don't need to fiddle with any moral implications behind bad people having good traits if you don't want to.

[PseudoFenton]

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

See, I already said our differences were going to be insurmountable.

That sounded more barbed than I think (or hope) it ought to have.

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Thanks for all who've replied, but please stay on topic. I'm just asking for where folks might view traits falling on the outlined axis, not whether "alignments" are appropriate to DF or not. Same things goes for hairsplitting on traits.

Sorry, slight derailment. But yeah, it is a moot point to argue if its needed, if that is what is being requested. My bad.

However, as you did leave the door open for a potential extra axis - can I take that to mean also musing over the validity of the proposed ones? If so, I would at least drop the Lawful/Chaotic one (or use them as synonyms like early D&D did). Bunny/Squid is not DF cannon, but might as well be, I'd favour that instead, less contention over meaning, and less "hair-splitting" possible (as really, you will get hair-splitting over traits otherwise).

Of cause, you need to more rigorously define just what is meant (and intended) by Bunny and Squid... is this something you're interested in following up here, or should it be taken to another thread?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Could we get a description of what your categories mean to you?

Sure, I thought it was pretty implicit, but let's me make it clear (I've modified the first post as well):

• Good: loyalty, integrity, altruism, respect for life (specifically or generally), compassion, duty, etc.
• Evil: selfishness, destruction for the sake of destruction, disregard for life, indifference, apathy, cruelty, etc.
• Balance/Nature: harmony, respect for nature, all things in equilibrium, simplicity, detachment from desires, etc.
• Chaos: Emotions, spontaneity/impulsiveness, irreverence, anarchy, freedom, adaptability, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, irresponsibility, etc.
• Law: Honor, logic/lack of emotions in thinking, duty, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, stability, conservatism, traditionalism, etc..

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

Sorry, slight derailment. But yeah, it is a moot point to argue if its needed, if that is what is being requested. My bad.

However, as you did leave the door open for a potential extra axis - can I take that to mean also musing over the validity of the proposed ones? If so, I would at least drop the Lawful/Chaotic one (or use them as synonyms like early D&D did). Bunny/Squid is not DF cannon, but might as well be, I'd favour that instead, less contention over meaning, and less "hair-splitting" possible (as really, you will get hair-splitting over traits otherwise).

Of cause, you need to more rigorously define just what is meant (and intended) by Bunny and Squid... is this something you're interested in following up here, or should it be taken to another thread?

It's cool. :-) I'm working on something either for my blog or maybe a Pyramid article for more "serious" Dungeon Fantasy. I've found that the way most people play DF the way you'd play DnD, that is where dungeons/adventuring are more dressing than drive. It's kind of like using DF as a skin for high fantasy - which is cool and exactly what I'm doing. In most high fantasy evil/good is a real force that can drive others. To emulate that I'm creating a corruption-like mechanic for a ethical axis. To do that I'm trying to suss out some traits and for which ethic they might fit the most.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Sure, I thought it was pretty implicit, but let's me make it clear (I've modified the first post as well):

• Good: loyalty, integrity, altruism, respect for life (specifically or generally), compassion, duty, etc.
• Evil: selfishness, destruction for the sake of destruction, disregard for life, indifference, apathy, cruelty, etc.
• Balance/Nature: harmony, respect for nature, all things in equilibrium, simplicity, detachment from desires, etc.
• Chaos: Emotions, spontaneity/impulsiveness, irreverence, anarchy, freedom, adaptability, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, irresponsibility, etc.
• Law: Honor, logic/lack of emotions in thinking, duty, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, stability, conservatism, traditionalism, etc..

I've got to agree with previous posters that Honesty fits more in Law than Good. Though I see that you've listed duty under both Good and Law so perhaps it's okay if disadvantages are replicated across categories?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I've got to agree with previous posters that Honesty fits more in Law than Good. Though I see that you've listed duty under both Good and Law so perhaps it's okay if disadvantages are replicated across categories?

Yeah, that's just going to happen in some cases (which is totally cool).

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

That sounded more barbed than I think (or hope) it ought to have.

I don't know why. I stated my opinion on the matter was irreconcileable with yours and you tried anyway. I didn't take it personally. I simply restated the fact that I believe our opinions were at an impasse.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Sure, I thought it was pretty implicit, but let's me make it clear (I've modified the first post as well):

• Good: loyalty, integrity, altruism, respect for life (specifically or generally), compassion, duty, etc.
• Evil: selfishness, destruction for the sake of destruction, disregard for life, indifference, apathy, cruelty, etc.
• Balance/Nature: harmony, respect for nature, all things in equilibrium, simplicity, detachment from desires, etc.
• Chaos: Emotions, spontaneity/impulsiveness, irreverence, anarchy, freedom, adaptability, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, irresponsibility, etc.
• Law: Honor, logic/lack of emotions in thinking, duty, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, stability, conservatism, traditionalism, etc..

To add to that, I'll note the following alignment concepts, since RPG alignment is such a fuzzy object.

Law vs. Chaos: D&D Planescape defined law on whether the character worked for or against communities and large settlements, and rule of law, while chaos worked towards family/clan being the primary unit of social organisation, and what Traveller called "rule of men", where legal decisions are made on a case by case basis rather than by means of codified lawbooks.

Good vs Evil: D&D Planescape went for Good people striving to help their community (whether that meant cities or clans), whereas Evil meant striving to help oneself at the deliberate expense of others around you. Neutral meant helping oneself while not significantly hurting those around you (which, when analysed carefully, has serious philosophical problems).

"Elemental" Alignment: I've seen this proposed by as "make more $element around you" and "be like the $element". This may be tied to the Classical Greek four humors theory, or something like the following:

• Fire: The quickest way to solve a problem is to destroy it.
• Earth: The quickest way to solve a problem is to find a solution to that doesn't require action. Most problems solve themselves if you wait them out.
• Air: The best solutions involve working with the other person to ensure you both reach a happy conclusion.
• Water: The best solutions involve going around the other person to get what you want, leaving him standing.

And finally, I once came up with my own extension to Warhammer's Law vs. Chaos concept:

Chaos is based on the idea of strong emotions that cater to a person's primal; emotional wants: the urge for revenge, the urge to possess, the urge to be loved, and the urge for ambition. In contrast, Law is based on primal fears. I developed three "gods of law": Ilaki, The Blinding light, The fear of dark; Ishbok, The Spear of Justice, the fear of hurt; and Keso, The Eternal One, the fear of change. In this regard, Law as an alignment represents a primal urge to ensure that everything stays the same, perfectly lit, free of sensation, and immobile. Both Chaos and Law in this paradigm become "Squid" alignments.

http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=596