#think of her as a bard/druid multiclass with a religious cast to the druid part

[beingatoaster]

realtalk though the reason the Keeper makes all her guards/hunters/etc. pair up, one eldarin and one fey lizardfolk (lizardfey?), is directly because of Beladio’s whole thing about how Scaled People Are Better back when he ruled the area

she understands that there’s differences in lifestyle and attitude, but there’s value in having both perspectives working in cooperation (she overthrew him with a lot of mammalian help), and she’s determined never to become him

(like, you know Patriarch in in Mass Effect 2, that krogan that Aria deposed and keeps around as a combination taunt/reminder? I didn’t model it on that because I’d honestly forgotten about it when I built the court and only replayed that second of the game recently, but the Keeper’s relationship with Beladio is somewhat similar. One part advisor (less and less as time goes on), one part reminder to her enemies, one part reminder to herself. The Keeper also has an element of deliberately keeping the past alive, in a very literal sense and magical/political, that Aria doesn’t, but otherwise... not that different)

this is one of those things that is neither a spoiler nor really relevant to the game, but it’s something I’ve known in the back of my head as I designed the palace

the Keeper’s subjects are going to cooperate and avoid infighting and work in harness when she requests it, or so help her she will turn this hunt around and then no one will be happy

[ancient-rome-au]

Piety vs. Philosophy: This axis signifies an important basis for a character’s views on ethics, code of personal conduct, cultural affinities, motivations, and general outlook on life. With respect to ethics, this axis is orthogonal to the notion of “good” and “evil,” since what may be considered evil from one point of view might be regarded as good by another.

For brevity, I will call this new dimension of alignment the Π-Φ (Pi-Phi) axis. The Law-Chaos axis remains unchanged. The Good-Evil axis has been largely eschewed. See the footnote at the end for comments on that.

Needless to say, there are countless religions and philosophies, which tend to disagree on a variety of issues to a greater or lesser extent. For example, a pious Christian character many behave quite differently from a pious initiate of the Mithraic Mysteries in matters of sexuality while both might serve as equally loyal soldiers. As another example, an Epicurean will seek pleasure (in moderation) as the greatest good while a diehard Cynic will abstain from pleasure entirely and live an ascetic lifestyle.

Nevertheless, philosophically-aligned characters of different philosophies may find common ground with one another in ways that they would not with religious characters. For example, philosophical characters regardless of philosophical persuasion will emphasize human reason in averring truth and look skeptically on supposed divine revelation. Similarly, pious characters of different faiths share traits that may lead them to form respect for one another and adopt an ecumenical view on the nature of the divine.

Piety

Piety connotes reverence for the gods and obedience to religious doctrines. Pious characters draw existential meaning from their spirituality.

In a Greco-Roman context, piety should be interpreted more broadly as the virtue pietas (in Latin) or eusebia (in Greek), which characterized those who properly fulfilled duties to parents, the nation, and the gods. In this regard, it has attributes in common with the lawful alignment. Thus, lawful pious characters are disproportionately common among pious characters. However, for clarity, let us consider the non-overlapping parts of this Venn diagram:

A character who is lawful but not pious is motivated by something other than religion (e.g. philosophy, personal honor, or abstract commitment to the law) to behave lawfully.

A character who is pious but not lawful will gladly disregard the law or social norms if his religion compels him to do so.

In deciding what they believe or what action to take, pious characters will base their decision on faith over reason in cases where the two conflict.

Sources of guidance for a pious character include religious scripture, priests of their faith, prayer, oracles, and augury. One of the strongest social affinities of a pious character is to her community of co-religionists, second only to family, in most cases. (A pious character may prioritize co-religionists over family if she has taken a monastic vow, or if she and her family are not on good terms with each other for whatever reason.) Pious characters like to bond with their co-religionists at temples and religious festivals.

Pious characters are more likely ascribe the cause of momentous events to fate, divine will, and providence.

Philosophy

Philosophy connotes a love of learning and adherence to philosophical principles derived from study and self-reflection. Philosophical characters draw existential meaning from their philosophy.

Philosophical characters share a belief that the universe and righteous moral conduct is governed by natural laws outside the jurisdiction of even the gods. Philosophy is the search for these higher truths. Chaotic philosophical characters are chaotic in that they act according to beliefs about natural law which conflict with man-made law.

In deciding what they believe or what action to take, philosophical characters will base their decision on reason over faith in cases where the two conflict.

Sources of guidance for a philosophical character include philosophical treatises, discourse with fellow philosophers, critical self-reflection, and academic study of subjects such as math, astronomy, natural history, etc. An important source of social affinity for a philosophical characters are their fellow scholars. Unless antisocial, philosophical characters seek each other out by congregating in person at academies and symposia, or by corresponding via letter, if the distance is too great.

Philosophical characters are more likely to ascribe the cause of momentous events to random chance or mortals exercising free will, rather than divine intervention.

Neutrality on the Π-Φ Axis

Someone who is neutral with respect to piety and philosophy may either:

Embrace both in equal measure, or

Care for neither, and simply follow their own judgement, common sense, and pragmatism wherever it may lead

Neutral and philosophic characters can be practicing members of a religion, but they are not strongly defined by their religion in their behavior and beliefs. For the purpose of spells which target only pious creatures, such characters are formally non-pious and not affected.

By the same token, neutral and religious characters can subscribe to a philosophy, but they are not strongly defined by their philosophy in their behavior and beliefs.  For the purpose of spells which target only philosophical creatures, such characters are formally non-philosophical and not affected.

Interactions between Magic and the Π-Φ Axis

Divine magic, as it always has in D&D, derives it powers from the worship of a god or gods. Therefore, it naturally follows that a divine spellcaster must be piously-aligned in a setting with this modified alignment system. The player must be in good standing with her god(s) in order to access her powers. (It is up to the DM to determine how rigorously he wishes to monitor player behavior and penalize it if it contradicts a pious alignment.)

Arcane magic is more ambiguous, with two main explanations:

“Mind Over Matter” - power inherent to the sheer force of personality and will of the caster (think sorcerer)

“Natural Philosophy” - power acquired and harnessed through careful study of the natural laws of the universe (think wizard)

In this setting, either definition is valid, but in either case, arcane spellcasters must be philosophically-aligned. An arcane spell cast should, therefore, act according to the precepts of his philosophy in order to access his powers.  (It is up to the DM to determine how rigorously she wishes to monitor player behavior and penalize it if it contradicts a philosophical alignment.)

These restrictions may be dispensed with by the DM on the basis of a unique character backstory. For example, a character multiclassing as both a divine and arcane spellcaster should be of a neutral alignment (on the Π-Φ axis) that integrates both a philosophy and a religion into their character’s identity and behavior. Other modifications and exceptions include:

Paladins:  In the base rules, paladins must be lawful good. In this setting, they must be lawful pious. Antipaladins must also be lawful pious; they merely worship dark gods.

Druids: As divine spellcasters, not only must Druids be piously-aligned, but they must primarily worship a Celtic god or a Celtic pantheon. A character trained to be a druid who later renounces their Celtic faith loses access to his powers. (Druids should also have a backstory consistent with our historical understanding of how one became a druid in Celtic societies. It is not something a character from, say, Persia can just pick up on his own through self-study.)

Bards: In the official rules of the game, bards are arcane spellcasters. However, for the purpose of this rule, bards may choose to be philosophical or pious. A philosophical bard is, essentially, a music theory nerd. A pious bard is inspired by the Muses, and their magic is to be considered divine for any relevant purposes. A pious bard still has access to the same spell list as a philosophical bard.

Alignment-Targeting Magic

There are a fair number of spells and spell-like abilities whose effects target only characters and creatures of a specific alignment, as specified in the name of the spell or its description. Examples include: holy/unholy aura, magic circle against good/evil/law/chaos, hallow/unhallow, and dispel good/evil/law/chaos. I am making two changes:

(1) The Simple, Obvious Addition

For every spell for which there exists one identical copy for each alignment, there now are two more copies of that spell: one which targets philosophy and another which targets piety. Continuing with the above examples, magic circle against piety or dispel philosophy.

Divine spells with overt religious connotation such as hallow and holy aura are now piously-aligned, instead of good aligned. Unhallow and unholy aura are piously-aligned, as well, but in service of dark gods such as Set, Satan, or Angra Mainyu.

(2) Subjective Good/Evil - Target Orthodoxy/Heresy/Heathen

The second and more complicated change involves a revamping to spells and abilities which target good and evil. Good and evil are de-emphasized in my campaign, because of the subjectivity of good and evil from varying religious and philosophical viewpoints. However, players may incidentally encounter “objectively” good-aligned or evil-aligned creatures (such as angels and demons) which alignment targeting spells/abilities can still affect as normal.

Alternatively, spells and abilities which target good or evil can instead target “subjectively” good (“orthodox”) creatures/characters and “subjectively” evil creatures/characters (heathens and heretics):

Orthodoxy (from Greek ὀρθοδοξία, orthodoxia – "right opinion"): For a target to be considered orthodox, the target must practice the same religion / philosophy as the caster, or a reasonably related religion / philosophy that the caster views favorably.

Heresy (from Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis – “choice” or “thing chosen”): For a target to be consider a heretic, the target must practice the same religion / philosophy but with notable disagreement over theological dogma / philosophical tenets. The caster must view this religion / philosophy unfavorably.

Heathen (from Old English hǣþen  – “pagan” or “heathen”): For a target to be considered a heathen, the target must practice an entirely different religion / philosophy. 

Practically speaking, there is no mechanical difference between heathen and heretic. Both are considered “subjectively evil.” But it may matter for flavor / story / role-playing reasons.

Here is an example to illustrate the idea:

Carlos is playing as a pious cleric of the Roman god Janus. His party is currently in Syria, in an encounter with ascetic Christian monks who have riled up a mob that is assaulting a temple of Baal. On his turn, Carlos announces he is casting smite heathen. The DM asks him whether he would like to smite objectively evil creatures or subjectively evil creatures. Carlos specifies “subjective evil - those fuckers who are so arrogant as to believe theirs is the one true god and that such a ‘god’ would command them to desecrate the sacred place of another faith. Not a god worthy of worship.” The DM ignores the rant and says “okay, roll to hit.”

Any creature or character that is piously-aligned to the 'wrong religion' in Carlos’ view is a valid target for the effects of Carlos’ smite heathen ability. For example, If Carlos looks favorably on the Kemetic (ancient Egyptian) faith of his companion, she is not a valid target for smite heathen. However, she is a valid target for any spell that cast by Carlos that benefits good-aligned creatures.

The same example can be applied to philosophical spellcasters. Spells that target evil can either target objectively evil-aligned creatures or subjectively evil creatures of the “wrong philosophy” (but not both at once), at the players’ discretion.

A character who is pious and wishes to target a philosophically-aligned character with a spell must instead use a spell that targets philosophy generally (see the rules for The Simple, Obvious Addition, above). Similarly, a philosophical character who wishes to target piety must use a general piety-targeting spell.

Players should be consistent about their attitudes towards religions and philosophies they frequently encounter, unless there is a clear story-based reason for an evolution in opinion. DMs are recommended to monitor and enforce this, if they can. Characters with an inconsistent attitude toward a certain religion or philosophy should gain social penalties.

Famous Quotes to Illustrate the Alignments

Here are some quotations from famous historical figures that correspond with the nine alignments arising from the intersection of the Π-Φ axis and the Law-Chaos axis.

Lawful Pious:

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s; render unto God what is God’s.”* – Jesus (Matthew 22:21)

*Many Christian theologians dispute the obvious interpretation of this quote, but for the sake of illustration of this alignment, consider the obvious interpretation.

“[Desire] nothing else than to accomplish the straight course through the law, and by accomplishing the straight course to follow God.” – Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Neutral Pious:

“Worship the Gods.” – Delphic Maxim #3

“Let me simply say that piety or holiness is learning how to please the gods in word and deed, by prayers and sacrifices. Such piety is the salvation of families and states, just as the impious, which is unpleasing to the gods, is their ruin and destruction.” - Euthyphro (in the eponymous dialogue with Socrates, by Plato)

Chaotic Pious:

“Nor did I deem thy edicts strong enough, that thou, a mortal man, should'st over-pass the unwritten laws of God that know not change.” - Antigone (Sophocles’ Antigone)

“We are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.” – Paul of Tarsus (Romans 3:28)

“My kingdom is not of this world.” - Jesus (John 18:36)

Lawful Neutral:

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions.” - Cicero

True Neutral:

On the Π-Φ Axis, there are two possible interpretations of neutrality:

Piety-Philosophy Hybrid

“As far as possible, join faith to reason.” – Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy

“It is not sufficient to say, "God spake and it was so." For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonize with the commands of God.” – Julian, Against the Galilaeans

“God is not a magician with a magic wand.” – Pope Francis I

Agnosticism

“To inquire what is beyond [the physical world] is no concern of man; nor can the human mind form any conjecture concerning it.” – Pliny the Elder

“There is nothing so absurd that it has not been said by some philosopher.” - Cicero

Chaotic Neutral:

“If I cannot sway the heavens, I'll wake the powers of hell!” – Juno (Virgil’s Aeneid)

Lawful Philosophical:

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy… cities will never have rest from their evils.” – Socrates (Plato’s Republic)

Neutral Philosophical:

“I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.” - Aristotle

 Chaotic Philosophical:

"Behold! Plato’s man!" - Diogenes of Sinope, bursting into a lecture by Plato while holding a plucked chicken

Footnote: the problems with Good vs. Evil

In my experience of D&D, the Tolkienesque dichotomy of good versus evil lacks depth for role-playing. I usually end up playing morally neutral characters because neither murdering innocents nor devoting myself to being a selfless hero is particularly appealing. Plus, there is basically no way to keep a party with both evil and good characters cohesive. Either the evil characters fail to act out their evil desires, the good characters blatantly ignore the evil acts of their companions, or some combination of both. I suppose a creative party could make it work, but what I would really prefer an alignment system with more nuance and ambiguity.

At the discretion of the DM, the good-evil axis may also be present as a 3rd dimension, but this should not be emphasized. Unless the campaign calls for it, player characters should not be evil. Some creatures and NPCs encountered by the party may be good- or evil-aligned, in which case spells and magical abilities that target this axis can have their ordinary effect, as described above. Characters and creatures that worship serve dark gods are most liable to be evil-aligned.