With GM approval... some inspiration for thinking more about how characters relate to the unfolding story.

Alignments in Magical Insurrection:

I hesitate to assign anything as strenuous as a traditional D&D alignment table to this RP as it's grounded in real world understandings of things like behavior and culture and ethics. However, I do think that there's an alignment table that has pretty significant implications [b]and[/b] is narratively relevant.

[b]1) The Means Of A Mage - The Ethical Scale
Lawful - Indifferent - Reformer[/b]

To any mage alive today, magical society is quite old, united by traditions, taboos, and tales that supersede ideologies risen from things like nationhood, religion, and ethnicity. In reality such ethical concerns have shaped what it has meant to be a mage just as readily as mages have from their peripheries shaped how such concepts view them. Mages alive today that are indifferent to this table either don't feel strongly enough to oppose or faithfully serve the Guild, or have decided that the status quo is unimportant to their goals in life (perhaps even beneficial, but ultimately without worth).

This is effectively a gauge for whether a character is:

[b]Lawful[/b] - Satisfied with the status quo--that the Guild and its sister establishments in other regions are not only necessary, but beneficial to magic users, non-magi, or both. Lawful mage characters are not only happy to uphold the majority of Guild policies and mandates, but expect that behavior from other mages. They aren't sycophants, LAwful characters can certainly disagree with The Guild heirarchy, its methods, and even desire for it to change, but they'd rather be a voice from within the Guild's ethos than without.

or

[b]Reformer[/b] - Reformer mages are actively opposed to the way things are in magical culture, whether it's where they live or where they see injustice. They may be opposed to the Magical Anonymity Mandate, the punishments they face for violating magical crimes, Traditional Magical Society at large (compare the generational dismay of newer generations with Western society), or any combination therein. Whatever their reasons, Reformers desire radical change in the magical community from without, may want to take active roles in shaping the future of that community, and might just want to watch the world burn.

[b]2) The Merit Of A Man - The Sovereignty Scale
Humanist - Cooperator - Magocrat[/b]

Is nagic helpful? Is magic being held back by The Anonymity Mandate? Should magic's curators, covetors and practicioners be in charge of the direction life on Earth is headed given its dwindling resources and ecological instability? These are difficult questions, but ask a nage and they'll probably have something of an answer.

Humanist - Humanists, at their heart, believe that something is wrong with humanity. A humanist mage, at their heart, believes that something is wrong with themselves. Mage or mortal, a humanist believes that that something [i]is[/i] magic. Magic is useful, certainly learning to use and control one's own magical affinity is necessary to a mage's survival, but it is dangerous or the life of a mage wouldn't be so perilous for themselves and others. Magic is powerful, but if power corrupts absolutely isn't magic just as hugely pernicious as money? Whether it results in adopting isolationist policies, thaumanthropy (like the Salem witch trials, etc), or just raw guilt, humanists have a hard time accepting magic as a part of life, let alone their personal lives. If push comes to shove, humanists believe that the world would be better off without magic. If the tension between non-magi and mages is any indication... the humanists might be right.

Cooperator - Magic is mysterious. Human affinities for it come in all sorts of flavors; rarely for instance do any two pyromancers see or shape flame in the same way. Magic also seems to respond to every new human invention, every new lifestyle. They interlace, and in any Cooperator's mind, you can't really have one without the other. Mages need to be able to work reality in the ways man kind otherwise can not, and humans have more time for the realities not even magic can change. Coexistence is at the heart of what cooperators believe about magic. Magic will always come back to surprise the world as it grows and changes, and magic will always fall short of solving the world's greatest problems.

Magocrat - Whatever you care to say about a mage, they have one thing non-mages don't: magic. Magic [i]is[/i] power. Magic is influence. It's one of the most crucial forces in human life. It shaped our prehistory, pervades all of our most ancient cultures, and most importantly, dominated them. Ask a perfectly rational person how the Mongol Empire conquered most of Eurasia within the span of less than a half-century, and they'll be able to point to a number of socioeconomic factors, the state of warfare in many of the countries that fell, and use many of those examples to explain why what was known as the Mongol Empire seemed to evaporate just as quickly. A Magocrat will be quick to remind you of how readily accepted mages were in Mongol society, how enlightenment era ideals had a profoundly positive effect on how mages were viewed elsewhere, and how really the disappearance of the Mongol Empire was just mages staking the claims they'd always ibntended to make in the first place. And there'll be grains of truth in each of their points. Whether anonymous or apparent, Magocrats believe that mages should rule men and that magic should rule mankind--and many of them are just as likely to believe that it always has.