New concept of alignment

>>49687955
I feel like a general system of allegiances and principles would be better than an alignment chart. What sorts of things do you value? Are you willing to put your own wants above other people's needs? Would you sacrifice someone for the sake of a mission? What sect or religion are you intimately loyal to? A variety of small questions that help flesh out a character. They don't have to all be filled in up front, and it would probably be better to work them in as you play.

First I'd need a reason to create one. "Just because" isn't a good enough reason to have alignments.

>>49687955
I'm sorry that you thought this was going to be a thread of intelligent and fun discussion.

>>49687993
>I feel like a general system of allegiances and principles would be better than an alignment chart

>"Please fill out this questionnaire before generating a character"

I don't know. Sounds a little complicated. Are we going to keep separate character reference sheets solely for values pertaining to alignment?

>"Oh, uh... Let me consult my alignment sheet to see how I feel about this particular situation before I react."

>>49687955
The alignment tree would have Angry, Hungry, Awesome, Badass, Neutral and What? and you could take them in any combination.

Angry Hungry is different from Hungry Angry and they change constantly.

>>49688052
>>49687993
>They don't have to all be filled in up front, and it would probably be better to work them in as your play.

I had developed an alignment system based on a cursory glance at some Freudian Psychology.

It tracked Id, Ego, and Super Ego, each in 3 steps simillar to D&D, giving a total of 27 different alignments.

Id, was rated as either Paragon, Neutral, or Renegade, and tracked your character's basser urges, like a propensity towards anger or addiction.

Ego, was either Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic, and tracked your character's desire to fit into social norms, and general adherence to the law.

Super Ego, was either Good, Neutral, or Evil, and tracked your desire to be altruistic, selfish, or malicious, acordingly.

I'd make a points based system where you choose a certain amount of social traits ie selfish, friendly, gregarious, chivalrous, paranoid etc.

That way you have some easy roleplaying parameters and some moral grey areas

File: SenZar CS Karma_Codes page.png (23KB, 808x1034px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 808x1034px

>>49688443
Sounds like pic related.

>>49687955
Rather than an alignment system per se, there's a number of faiths which proclaim what they call 'good', and anti-faiths that declare a set of actions 'evil'. So the treehuggger faith might declare elves 'good', while the anti-treehuggers declare them evil.

Each would then have a short table making up a TL;DR at the end which would just be a list of things like, "Can I kill the baby orcs?" where the SMITERS WHO SMITE would go "yes", the huggers of all life would go "no, you can't even kill the orc parents", the seekers of the future would go "well, only if you can't shove them in an orphanage", etc.

>>49689851
There'd be. Not there there is. I haven't built this thing yet. Goddamn it, keyboard, why must you betray me so?

I like Paragon and Renegade as described (not used) in Mass Effect.

Paragon means you strive to inspire. At the very least, you hold concrete ideals. You might not do the 'right' thing, but you will try to be someone respectable.

Paragons will shoot a man in the face but never in the back. Paragons respect their prisoners. Paragons will parley with their enemies and turn them into friends. A paragon still might break the law, or kill, or what have you. A paragon can be evil.

Renegades don't give a damn about their reputation accidental Joan Jett . Danger must be eliminated by all means necessary. If it's hostile, you kill it.

A renegade will bring a knife to a gunfight. A renegade will target an enemy's family. A renegade will execute prisoners, or torture. A renegade can be good.

>Examples

Batman vs The Punisher
Xanatos vs Shredder
Xavier vs Magneto

The distinction here is on methods rather than ideals, to some extent.