In light of all the talk about alignments on Amia, I recalled a discussion that was had about a possible third axis of alignment that might be considered to exist in a game world. This axis is Creative vs Destructive.

Have any of you players ever considered your PC's (or any DM's considered their NPC's) under such an alignment system? There used to be a good visual of this system somewhere on the forums, but I can't find it. Basically, it i looks like a rubik's cube.



I'm not suggesting it be added to Amia or anything, I merely thought it was an interesting concept to keep in mind. I find it allows for a greater explanation of a PC than the traditional axes alone. One differentiation I feel makes this very apparent is LG Creative vs LG Destructive. LG Creative more than likely attempts to do the most good they can, to create law and harmony through good works and adding beneficial elements to the world. LG Destructive is more likely to be a kind of Crusader, or more appropriately, an Avenger, one who's main goal is to snip out those Evil and Chaotic elements by purging and deleting them. They both share the same ultimate goals of Lawful and Good, but it boils down to how they go about "fixing" the system; correction by addition or correction by subtraction, making harmony through the creation of harmonic elements or the removal of the dissonant ones.

_________________

I kinda like this. Definitely further defines a character. Luca would probably be neutral on the Creative/Destructive scale, however, a mix of bolstering his own position and snipping out key targets. Talyne wholly Creative Neutral Good.

I preferred the piety vs ascetism scale for a world like FR, myself. But really, by then you're into 4D hypercubes and physics breaks down, all in character creation. Stephen Hawking would shoot us.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Doesn't everyone take this into consideration with building a character, anyway, without the need for just the simple 3 flavors variety?

The game should have less artificial mechanical dead weight that people use as a behavior checklist. Not more. I'm solidly of the opinion that the only reason to include alignment in the game, ever, is so that spells like "Protection from Evil" can function.

Play a personality, not an alignment.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Definitely. The 'checklists' are there to provoke thought, not necessarily define the characters.

I feel the same way, even when it comes to classes. This is more or less just seeing where your PC would fall, if anywhere, under the axes. This is a reflective observation, if anything. Yossarin is right, any system of alignment usually pales to fully explain a PC as they are supposed to be individuals, but again, it's just food for thought.

I know for mine it makes sense. Zammikyra is, much to her own horror, Destructive. The powers her god has gifted her with to destroy Evil are far more numerous than the ones she has been given to create. She excels so much more at purging things that she sometimes finds herself at odds with other people in her traditional alignment. Beldor on the other hand is substantially more Creative. While he is a firm believer in equal and opposite exchange, his paradigm for sorcery largely involves expressing himself. This focuses more on the things he brings into being, rather than what he's taking out. To put it another way, he cares more about creating a spectacular Fireball in all its splendid beauty, rather than the poor sod it's about to turn to ash.

_________________

Haerward, definitely destructive, but in a 'doesn't particularly care to create, destroys because he's frustrated' kind of way. So, casual destructive.

_________________
Unuldor d'Vilrath - Herald of Discipline
Nadrin Vlos - sadistic torturer, physician and
Brognar Steerinsport - crazy dueregar monk
Saul Rephaim - Sane

Nerd history lesson: like so many things in DnD, the alignment system is a product of Gygax aping a fantasy author he enjoyed, in this case Moorcock's Chaos v Law mythology. First edition DnD didn't have good or evil, it had law and chaos; good and evil were added later. By then, the idea of 'axes' were too ingrained in the system to do away with them.

I strongly prefer no alignment systems, where people play a personality that doesn't have to fit into a box. If we just used alignment as a guideline I wouldn't really care at all, but because it does function mechanically, we end up needing to pay attention to it.

Re: creative v destructive, I like it, and it does indeed offer some much needed clarity between a paladin who is (technically) good because they commit genocide against goblins and a paladin who tries to solve every problem by laying on hands. It equally distinguishes between a CE agent of all consuming chaos and a CE backstabbing plotter. It doesn't perfect the system, but it does add a much needed piece of clarity.

_________________
You dare mock the Tibbly one, catcherer of drowses?