Alignment and reactions

Assume alignment has a good-evil or a law-chaos axis and further assume that the rules system uses some sort of reaction rolls, with a good result meaning (more) favourable reaction and a bad result meaning hostile or negative reaction.

If using a law-chaos axis, then any lawful character has their reaction improved by one step if they assume the other party is lawful, and worsened by one step if they assume the other party to be chaotic.

If using a good-evil axis, then the reaction of good character to everyone increases by one step, while the reaction of evil characters to everyone worsens by one step.

Implications

A good society is a nice place. An evil one is not. But any good character might be taken advantage of and might not do as well as an evil character, especially in a situation of scarcity. This is a sort of prisoner’s dilemma. Law and chaos are mere tribes.

To determine the alignment of an established player character (that has been played for a while), consider:

  • How do they treat characters they assume to be lawful when compared to those they assume to be chaotic? If they clearly favour one side, then that’s their chaos-law alignment.
  • How do they treat complete strangers? If they mistreat them, they are evil. If they treat the strangers with caution, they are neutral. If they try to help and aid strangers, treating them as friends, they are good.
Alignment and reactions

Religious tenets for clerics

The typical presentation of a god in fantasy games assigns various spheres of influence to the god. In D&D 3 and Pathfinder the gods have associated domains.

Two tenets and one more

Each cleric, or other character drawing power from a more powerful being, writes two tenets. The referee must accept the tenets. Each selected tenet must be connected to a different domain associated with their patron god.

If the cleric chooses particular domains, then each chosen domain must have one associated tenet. Typical cleric selects two domains and so should write tenets related to those.

A tenet restricts the behaviour of the cleric, at least in some situations.

Each cleric also has the common tenet: to respect the god and what is sacred, to avoid what is profane, to participate in the daily rites and prayers, to be subject to the rituals associated with birth, death, coming of age, marriage, justice, etc. For monotheistic religions this tenet also includes not serving other gods.

Example: Tenets of Absolon

Though tenets are particular to a given character and god, some suggestions or defaults are useful.

  • Glory: Destroy the undead and the unholy, as well as mortals consorting with such.  Should this be beyond your present ability, harm them as much as you can and return with greater force.
  • Law: Expand the influence of Absolon, i.e. the laws and customs of the empire of Maldor.
  • Nobility: Treat nobles according to their station.
  • Aristocracy: Act and demand to be treated as one of noble blood. To select this tenet the character must be a member of a noble house in Maldor.
  • Leadership: Take leadership over your peers and inferiors, as defined by the hierarchy of the church of Absolon and empire of Maldor.
  • Sun: As the sun settles, call it back and keep its memory with an open flame; a campfire or more if you remain at a fixed location, a torch or greater flame if you are on the move.
  • Day: Act during the day, rest during the night.
  • Light: Never be in darkness.

Divine disfavour

Breaking a tenet accidentally, in a minor way (it is not noticed in play when it happens, only later), or against your will has the god choose some of your spells for you when you next prepare spells. The chosen spells should reflect the personal failing, rather than punish.

Acting against the god or breaking a tenet leads to the god withdrawing a measure of its power: the cleric loses their spells of highest level until they stop breaking the tenet. A full day of respectful obedience gives the powers back, as does using the atonement spell.

Denying the god, blasphemy, or severely breaking a tenet leads to immediate loss of divine powers. Repeatedly breaking a tenet, despite the warnings, leads to the same. Only an atonement may return the divine favour.

Changing tenets

Altering a tenet should follow the same guidelines as changing alignments, but should not be as big a deal. A ritual of some sort is also appropriate, or an atonement spell. The referee must accept the new form of the tenet.

Communication

The referee should always warn the player that their character is about to lose their divine powers, if such an event is about to happen. An act done without knowledge may only lead to the lesser consequences.

If a character is about to break a tenet or considers such an act, the referee should roll an easy check of wisdom or religious knowledge and, on success, warn the player of the consequences.

A player who asks about the divine consequences of an action should get an answer, possibly conditional on a check of wisdom or religious knowledge. The check should not, in general, be very difficult. Even low level divine spells (guidance, augury) should warn of divine disfavour with no chance of failure.

Design notes

The tenets are supposed to be somewhat restrictive, but not crippling, so they change gameplay without making the cleric unplayable. This is hard to tell without playtesting, but similar reasoning applies to selecting and defining BITs in Burning Wheel, keys in Solar system, etc.

The purpose of these rules is to emphasize the role of religion for adventurous religious characters and to make clerics of different faiths different in their behaviour. The ability to choose a number of tenets may mirror various factions among the faithful, and allows for greater freedom and more restrictive tenets that do not completely define or cripple a character.

The tie to domains or spheres of influence provides a starting point for defining the tenets, as well as a fixed number for their amount.

Religious tenets for clerics

More movement in combat

A completely untested house rule idea for Pathfinder, D&D 3, or other figure chess roleplaying games.

The idea

When defending in melee, the defender must make a choice before the attack: either take -2 AC or after the attack has been resolved move five feet away from the attacker, as though taking a 5′ step.

When attacking in melee, the attacker must make a choice before attack: either attack at -2 or after the attack has been resolved move 5′ towards the square the opponent occupied if there is space.

To select movement the defender must have space to move into. The attacker must have space to move if the defender moves or falls. Otherwise, -2.

The price

The rule would allow people to move farther than usual without attacks of opportunity by attacking or defending against incidental attacks. Hence there must be a limit.

I am not happy with the following solution, since it is inelegant. If the character about to move has movement left this turn (a move action, say), then the movement speed of the character is reduced. If they don’t have any (more) movement left, then the speed at which they could move next turn is reduced.

This should be considered and worded more carefully.

Details

The rule only applies to melee attacks. Maybe avoiding ranged attacks and making reflex saves movement to random direction or -2 AC/reflex save?

The rule does not apply to attacks of opportunity.

For a medium-sized creature, moving away from an opponent means any of the three squares that are farthest from the enemy.

There will be unintended conflicts with various class abilities and presumably feats.

Motivation

One may or may not consider this rule realistic. It would create more dynamic combat situations even with characters that have no special abilities. It would allow pressing through enemy lines or keeping a formation (at a price).  Having space behind you would be a boon.  Overpowering the enemy with sheer numbers might become somewhat easier.

More movement in combat