DwD Studios
Allegiance vs. Alignment
Tue, 04/02/2013 - 8:13am | 
Ascent
I like this article, particularly when it gets to the allegiance part of the discussion. Allegiance is a good way to handle questions of good and evil. Though, I hold that an allegiance can be a dedication to an ideal rather than higher power.
http://www.kjd-imc.org/2013/04/02/alignment-or-allegiance/
The moral code of BBF fits well with allegiance. One who is totally dishonorable (read: disloyal) not only will stab anyone in the back if it suits them, but has no allegiances except chaos, while one who is totally honorable (read: loyal), holds their allegiances above all else and is thus completely lawful to their own causes.
Really, between the honorability and kind/cruel morals, you have the full gamut of alignment, but in a free-form fashion. If you must define good and evil, I'd say that one who is good (of the pius variety) would be honorable, selfless and kind, whereas one who is evil is cruel, selfish and dishonorable.
On the other hand, you could mimic D&D's 9 alignments this way:
Lawful Good = Totally Honorable, Totally Kind, Totally Selfless
Chaotic Good = Somewhat Honorable, Very Kind, Somewhat Selfish
Neutral Good = Somewhat Dishonorable, Somewhat Kind, Somewhat Selfless
Lawful Neutral = Very Honorable, Somewhat Cruel, Somewhat Selfless
Chaotic Neutral = Somewhat Dishonorable, Somewhat Cruel, Somewhat Selfish
True Neutral = Somewhat Honorable, Somewhat Cruel, Somewhat Selfless
Lawful Evil = Totally Honorable, Totally Cruel, Totally Selfish
Chaotic Evil = Totally Dishonorable, Totally Cruel, Totally Selfish
Neutral Evil = Somewhat Honorable, Very Cruel, Somewhat Selfish
Thoughts?
| 
Tags: 
BareBones Fantasy RPG is not associated with Skaldcrow Games' Bare Bones Multiverse, despite similar names. Check out Glenn's products by clicking here.
Hi Ascent, I'm glad you liked the article.
Allegiances, as expressed in the article, expect there to be two sides to the exchange. A 'higher power' might not be the right expression, since it's two-sided and both sides are expected to participate. In fact, I can imagine an allegiance between a powerful feudal ruler (the PC) and his vassals ("the people of my realm, by way of my vassals").
An allegiance to an ideal, though, might be a little troublesome under this model because allegiance expects an exchange of some sort. Without that exchange it might be little more than a note documenting a character's belief or behavior.
There are ways to make it work, though. The other side of the allegiance does not necessarily have to be a concrete entity (though in my campaign it is likely to be). I can imagine an abstract entity representing (in the model) the ideal of the allegiance. "The Powers of Good" might be sufficient for an allegiance.
I am reluctant to allow too much abstraction, though. "The Thing I Believe In" is awfully loose, and I've met players who would try it (though the Solar with the "arrow of slaying... that guy"[1] got the point across pretty clearly).
Still, as long as there is an exchange, I'd be willing to consider it. The primary indicators to me would be clear guidelines of behavior and/or service, benefits for doing so, penalties for not. If someone did try "The Thing I Believe In" and it had reasonably balanced effect I'd be willing to consider it.
Keith