HOME | DD
DoASpotCheck — 5 by 5 Alignment Chart
Published: 2011-06-06 00:22:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 63851; Favourites: 179; Downloads: 7372
Redirect to original
Description
We did it. After almost 5 hours of thought and work on this 5 by 5 alignment we have finally competed this monster of an alignment chart. We put a lot of thought into it and while we are sure that there are other characters to fit these roles, these are the best we could come up with. It was a project and we likely will not make another one anytime soon.For more alignment charts and other cool D&D content, check out my blog at [link]
(Picture may take awhile to load)
Related content
Comments: 78
Interesting.
Personally I enjoy 'wiggle room' in alignment. I have made several Chaotic Good characters over the time that I've played as a player none of them act the same.
However, I can see were elaboration on how a character acts can be useful for both a DM and a player that is questioning how their character might react to a situation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Don't get me wrong, wiggle room is fantastic especially for something as vague as alignment. All we were trying to do was narrow it down to another level in order to "fill in the gray spots" where you aren't sure which side of the coin you land on between neutral good and chaotic good (for example).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand that, and it is a very interesting concept. You did very well on the deviation, I don't mean to say you didn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Personally, as a DM I've tried to keep alignment mostly in the background. Players should be able to play any sort of personality without feeling restricted to a chart or without me constantly writing down their alignment changes. It also made it seem fairly contrived that a Dragon's scale colors automatically determined their personality.
The only times I've ever seen a reason for it is for certain classes such as Paladin and Clerics, magic items and (although I hated these spell) Detect evil,law,chaos,good. I just wonder how alignments like social, impure, ect... work.
Is there a seperate detect impure? does your magical evil radar pick up slightly fainter blips for the impure ones. How does D&D cosmology now work?
Really my only gripe now, is that Alignment arguments were one of the few things that could snag a game and bring it screeching to a halt as 3+ nerd at a table decide whether batman is lawful neutral or chaotic good. So adding extra middle points (while a cool idea like the quasi elements) isn't something I'd want to add to my sessions. Still, interesting concept.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In my experience, alignment is more a tool for explaining abstract, even bullshit behavior of a party member. When I create a relatively 'open' world for the party, with strong hints as to where they are to go, I need a reason why PLAYER A decided to burn down the farmhouse.
If they can justify it based on their alignment and character's prior actions, I'll understand.
In our group, knowing each others alignments prior to an event is a necessity. It may be a form of metagaming, as they know each other before getting to know each other, but it prevents PLAYER B from flipping out on PLAYER A... most of the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See I, for better or worse, tended to let players go wild. However there would be possible implications or even penalities (depending on whether it was a natural in game slide or and overt being a bastard).
For example, if a player were to be trolling and play their barbarian in a non-lawful way, for example going to galas and sipping champagne with a monocle for the lulz, it would probably result in him losing his ability to rage since the city life had dulled his inner beast. But if it was a natural progression it might be a shift of losing some Barbarian skills but gaining perhaps valuable contacts and literacy.
However, I've been pretty lucky for having very few players that would break alignments and/or character. On the flip side I've not really enforced it. So maybe this new system is just not for me or my group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Character progression is very admirable. As, in our group it either happens abruptly or not at all. This may seem like it would be an irritant, but as we don't get together all that often anymore it may be expected.
Anyway, I doubt we'll be implementing a new alignment system in our group.
Interesting conversation you've led me into, I thank you for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Social would be those who are able to interact with others in general without huge deviations, but don't use Law to their advantage or try to uphold it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm almost thinking those new terms for alignment is from 4th edition durka-derp -.-
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
You are incorrect. 4th Edition does not introduce those new alignment categories.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that's already been discussed haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So be it. I don't take sides on any edition war, as I play/have played all editions of D&D, but please try to be informed. If you want to make an argument against 4th edition, fine, more power to you, but make sure it's not based on incorrect information.
Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... You just took a side... And I never admitted to even having factual knowledge of 4th edition... If you want to make an argument, be sure there's one to be had, I'll lock horns with anyone if they feel like it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I didn't take a side, I know you never admitted to having knowledge of 4th editon, and I didn't want to make an argument, especially about something as debated as 4E. Long ago did I learn that there are an exceedingly small amount of individuals capable of carrying on a civilized conversation regarding it before a topic of it dissolves into trolling and insults.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hehe I do enjoy the art of argument, I am Spanish after all and don't worry I would never result to simple name calling (it's no fun for either side). I did play 4th edition briefly for a skimming look over and found that Hasbro was trying to turn an open ended tabletop game into a rule bound board game, which in hind-sight, I would say I'm more irritated at Hasbro more then the game itself.
I also didn't expect someone to argue-defend with me <.< (thanks for the support on that Randomocity132). In general I do believe 4th edition CAN be a good game but I have yet to meet the proper DM for that particular edition to make it enjoyable enough for me to actually play it...
I do play devil's advocate often and in this round I will tip my hat to you, because this topic is very touchy and it will eventually boil down to exactly what you said (with new challengers appearing)... All party members gain +50EXP and a Brofist
(btw your L4D F-Yeah gave me a good laugh, I like it)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'll simply say that, based on your words, you'd probably enjoy the way I play 4E. I'm a DM, you see, and I'm heavilly influenced by past editions, and the sessions I preside over are often far more roleplaying-focused than mechanically-focused. Now, the argument has been raised that the rules in vanilla 4E don't advocate roleplaying, or offer significant bonuses towards it, but I never got the impression that roleplaying wasn't advocated by it. Rather, the many books of 4E that I have read offer lots of roleplaying material. I find that it is a very well-balanced system upon which I can justify my roleplaying and work towards the betterment of my player's experiences in playing the game.
Really, what it boils down to is that D&D is about having fun, and I'm able to give my players a good time with 4E (save for one friend who likes 3.5 much better, but hey, can't please everyone).
As long as we all fly under a D&D banner, we'll have common ground upon which to stand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I do enjoy that this possible argument went into a wonderful discussion of views it was refreshing to find someone who wasn't full of vulgarity 
And we all know to each his own!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To each his own indeed, friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed, I'm a DM too, I've done public hosting at game shops for anniversaries, etc upon owner's request and all that jazz, sadly I rarely get to be the player cause everyone just wants me to host the games every time. Out of the possibly 9 4th edition DMs that I have had none have thrilled me with brilliant story telling and their ability to keep the game (and mechanics) running smoothly and forward, it was lacking to say the least, giving me a bitter taste for it due to all the hype of how it was going to be better and then I was given all the examples of it's possible short comings.
Gotta love bad DMs they warp the view of a game for the worst for other potentially interested players, haha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, seriously. Zeknox just said that he didn't know, and suggested that it might be 4e because he has only played other editions. He's not making any sort of argument against it.
And by defending 4e from a nonexistant argument, Nave-Ninja, you're showing your hand. You're obviously bitter than people don't like 4e and jump to the conclusion that any mention of it must be negative.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, in 4e it's more linear, You just have Lawful Good > Good > Neutral > Evil > Chaotic Evil
That said, I prefer the 3.5 alignments, not that it's not easy as hell to houserule 3.5 alignments into a 4e game anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
O.o
Well... I have stuck with 3.0 and 3.5 so, if they are I still am in the dark.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*SUPER HIGH FIVE([link] )* LONG LIVE THE 1-3.5ed players!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Apparently I can't delete previous comments.
=\
Oh well. No, the new 4 categories were made up by DoASpotCheck and I.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DoASpotCheck may hide each individual comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0